
Class ^ a 4-2/4- 
Book :__ 



CoByiigbt N?_ 



©QEBRIGHT DEPOSIT. 



VOLUME I 



MY COUNTRY, 'TIS OF THEE 



MY COUNTRY, 'TIS OF THEE 

By Russell L. Dunn 



VOLUME I 



The American People — The Natural Rights and Ruling Rights — Citizens' 
Military Service — Extraterritorial Obligations 

VOLUME II 

The Constitutions and Their Periods— Period of Disregard of Constitu- 
tions — American Taxation: State, Federal and Executive — Public 
Land of the United States— Mining in the Public Land 

VOLUME III 

The Rights to Water— Foreign Relations— Regulation of Commerce- 
Government Ownership of Commerce — Capital, Knowledge 
and Political Power — Votes 



VOLUMES II AND III IN PRESS 



Price $2.50 Per Volume 



RUSSELL L. DUNN, Publisher 
74 New Montgomery Street 
San Francisco - California 




M COUNTRY, TIS OF THEE 




Russell li.Dtmn. 



M 




•Ths 



Copyright, 1920 

By Russell L. Dunn 

San Francisco, California 



JEC 15 1920 



©CI.A604587 



In Ifem©^ ©if 
t© m®afe V&ttiu 








FOREWORD 

The purpose of this hoo\ is to present in 
connected, reasoned form such an explanation 
of the basic principles of the institutions of 
American society, and of the republican form 
of m self -government originated by this society, 
that the American youth and men who study 
with the book will understand why they are 
and remain by free choice original Americans, 
and why they are not and will not be rever- 
sions to types of other nationalists, or proselytes 
to their degenerate political spawn of socialists, 
anarchists, Soviets or reds. 

The Author. 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 



VOLUME I 

Chapter 1 Page 
The American Peopl 1 

Chapter II 
Natural Rights and Ruling Rights 16 

Chapter III 
The Natural Right to Life 21 

Chapter IV 
Natural Rights of Inhabitants in the Public Lands 27 

Chapter V 
Natural Right of Inhabitants to have Private Property 51 

Chapter VI 
The Natural Right to have Liberty 56 

Chapter VII 
The Natural Right to the Pursuit of Happiness 70 



Chapter VIII 
The Ruling Rights of Citizens 85 

Chapter IX 

Ruling Right of Citizens to make Form of Govern- 
ments 89 

Chapter X 
The Ruling Right to make the Laws 102 

Chapter XI 
Ruling Right of Citizens to elect Officers and Courts 126 

Chapter XII 
The Ruling Right to serve as Officers and Courts 133 

Chapter XIII 
Citizens' Military Service to States 152 

Chapter XIV 
Citizens' Military Service to United States 157 

Chapter XV 
Plan for a Citizens' National Army 172 

Chapter XVI 
Extraterritorial Obligations of American Dominion 192 



Chapter I. 



THE AMERICAN PEOPLE 



Their The American People were originally subjects 

Ongm. £ t k e xcing of Great Britain. They lived in the 

lands of thirteen American Colonies of his King- 
dom which were situated between Canada, an- 
other American Colony of his Kingdom north of 
them, and Florida and Louisiana, American Col- 
onies of the Kings of Spain and France,, south 
and west of them. 

Declaration The beginning of the American People was 

°f made by their Declaration of Independence on 

Independence. j uly ^ m ^ By thig Dec l arat i on t he subjects 

of the King of Great Britain living in these lands 
held themselves thenceforward to be free and 
independent of the King, and held that they, and 
not the King, thenceforward possessed all domin- 
ion over the lands. 



Beginning as 
a white race 
People. 
They assumed 
the Title of 
"Citizen" 
indicating 
equality. 



In their beginning the American People held 
that only those persons living in the lands lately 
of the thirteen American Colonies who were of 
white or Caucasian race, immigrants from Great 
Britain and other European countries, and their 
descendants, became the American People by 
their Declaration of Independence. They de- 
clared themselves equal as persons in possession 
of the dominion over the lands, and adopted or 
assumed the title of Citizen as expressing their 
equal right of dominion. 



MY COUNTRY, 'TIS OF THEE 



Those who 
were inhab- 
itants of their 
dominion. 



Negroes were 
slaves. 



Foreign slave 
trade of Amer- 
ican People 
stopped. 



Restriction 
of domestic 
slave trade. 



At the time of their beginning the inhabitants 
in the territory besides themselves were per- 
sons of the black or Negro race, immigrants 
from Africa, and their descendants, and persons 
of the red or American Indian race, natives of 
the soil. There were no persons of either the 
yellow or brown races — Chinese or Malays from 
Asia — among the inhabitants. 

Persons of the black or Negro race, inhab- 
itants of the dominion, were most of them slaves 
possessed by persons of the white race. Slaves 
were held by the American People to be prop- 
erty of the nature of chattels. Slaves had been 
held to be property of the nature of chattels in 
the Colonies before the Declaration of Inde- 
pendence. 

In 1808 the American People stopped their 
foreign trade in slaves. Prior to that year 
Negroes were an article of their foreign trade, 
imported, from Africa principally, and exported 
to Cuba and Brazil principally. The stopping 
was effected by an Act of Congress under 
tuthority of Section 9 of Article I of the Con- 
stitution of the United States. 

The immigration or importation of such per- 
sons as any of the states now existing shall 
think proper to admit shall not be prohibited 
by the congress prior to 1808. 

From their beginning the American People 
restricted their domestic slave trade by limiting 
the territory of their dominion within which 
slavery was permitted. 

The part of them constituting the seven north- 
ern of the thirteen independent States, which they 



THE AMERICAN PEOPLE 



Abolition of 
Domestic 
slave trade. 



established in place of the thirteen Colonies, very 
shortly after the Declaration of Independence 
stopped the domestic slave trade in their own 
territories by force of acts of their respective 
Legislatures abolishing slavery in them. 

The Ordinance of 1787, made by The United 
States in Congress assembled, the committee of 
the thirteen States provided for them by their 
Articles of Confederation before their real union 
under the Constitution of the United States, 
further restricted the domestic slave trade terri- 
torially by prohibiting slavery in the lands north 
of the Ohio River, in which the new States of 
Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin and 
Minnesota were afterward created. 

The Missouri Compromise in 1820, under 
which Congress admitted the State of Missouri, 
with slavery permitted, added to the territory 
from which the domestic slave trade was ex- 
cluded by prohibiting slavery in the lands west 
of the State of Missouri and north of the par- 
allel of latitude thirty-six degrees thirty minutes 
north, the line which has since become the south- 
ern boundary of the States of Kansas, Colorado 
and Utah. 

The creation of the State of California by the 
inhabitants of the former Territory of Mexico, 
in 1849 further limited the domestic slave trade 
by the prohibition of slavery within the State, 
half of which was to the south of the parallel of 
latitude thirty-six degrees thirty minutes north. 

In 1865 the remaining domestic slave trade of 
the American People was abolished by force of 
the decision in the Civil War between the States. 



MY COUNTRY, 'TIS OF THEE 



Negroes made 
subjects of the 
American 
People. 



Negroes made 
Citizens. 



Indians held 
to be subjects 
of the 
American 
People. 



Indians held 
to be wards 
though made 
Citizens. 



The record of this decision by war force is the 
Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the 
United States, made in that year. 

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, 
except as a punishment for crime whereof the 
party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist 
in the United States or any place subject to 
their jurisdiction. 

Beginning with the war decision the American 
People ceased holding persons of the black race 
to be property, instead, holding them to be 
subjects. 

In 1868 the American People made their black 
or Negro race subjects part of themselves, Cit- 
izens, by force of the Fourteenth Amendment to 
the Constitution of the United States. 

All persons born or naturalized in the United 
States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof 
are citizens of the United States and of the 
state wherein they reside. 

Persons of the red, or American Indian, race 
who resided in the lands over which the Ameri- 
can People had taken dominion from the King 
of Great Britain were held to be their subjects. 
The Indians had been held to be subjects of 
Great Britain's King before the Declaration of 
Independence. They changed rulers, but not 
their condition as subjects. 

Later, the American People ceased holding 
the Indians to be their subjects, holding, instead, 
that they were part of themselves, Citizens, but 
with the reservation that they were wards of the 
rest of the American People. The relation of 

4 



THE AMERICAN PEOPLE 



Aliens made 
Citizens by 
Treaty cov- 
enants and by 
Naturalization. 



Aliens made 
Citizens by 
Treaty with 
France. 



ward and guardian is becoming more and more 
restricted territorially, and is likely to become 
abolished altogether with the disappearance of 
the tribal relations of the Indians. 

Besides the increase of the number of Ameri- 
can Citizens through their making over of some 
of their subjects into Citizens, a further increase 
has come about through their admission of 
aliens to become Citizens. This has been done 
in two ways: first, by treaty covenants with 
foreign states, providing that certain citizens or 
subjects of the latter, as the case might be, might 
become Citizens of the United States by force 
of the covenants ; and, second, through individual 
aliens, citizens or subjects of foreign states, first 
making settlement and residence in an American 
State, and then individually, without first taking 
consent of their former state, declaring inde- 
pendence of it and of the ruler of it, and accept- 
ing, or rather receiving, the right and status of 
an American Citizen in a form provided by law 
and referred to as naturalization 

The Treaty with France for the cession of her 
Colony of Louisiana to the United States, made 
in 1803, covenanted that, 

The inhabitants of the ceded territory shall 
be incorporated in the United States, and ad- 
mitted as soon as possible, according to the 
principles of the Federal Constitution, to the 
enjoyment of all the rights, advantages and 
immunities of citizens. 



Aliens made 
Citizens by 
Treaty with 
Spain. 



The Treaty with Spain for the cession of her 
Colonies of Florida to the United States, made 
in 1821, covenanted that, 



MY COUNTRY 



TIS OF THEE 



Aliens made 
Citizens by 
Admission 
of Texas. 



Aliens made 
Citizens by 
Treaty with 
Mexico. 



Aliens made 
Citizens by 
Treaty with 
Russia. 



The inhabitants of the territories which his 
Catholic Majesty cedes to the United States, by 
this treaty, shall be incorporated in the Union 
of the United States, as soon as may be con- 
sistent with the principles of the Federal Con- 
stitution, and admitted to the enjoyment of all 
the privileges, rights and immunities of the cit- 
izens of the United States. 

In 1845 the independent State of Texas, the 
Citizens of which were largely and dominantly 
former Citizens of the United States, originally 
of the American people, was admitted to the 
Union of the United States by Act of Congress, 
the Citizens of Texas becoming thereby Cit- 
izens of the United States. Mexicans residing 
in Texas became Citizens of the United States 
by its admission. 

The Treaty of Guadaloupe Hidalgo, at the 
close of the war between the United States and 
Mexico, for the cession of her territories of 
California and New Mexico to the United States, 
made in 1848, covenanted that, 

Mexicans now established in territories pre- 
viously belonging to Mexico, and which remain 
for the future within the limits of the United 
States, as denned by the present treaty, . . . 
who shall prefer to remain in the said terri- 
tories may either retain the title and rights of 
Mexican citizens or acquire those of citizens of 
the United States. 

The Convention with Russia for the cession of 
the Russian possessions in North America to 
the United States, made in 1867, covenanted 
that, 

6 



THE AMERICAN PEOPLE 



Aliens made 
Citizens by 
naturalization. 



The interest 
of foreign 
states in the 
A merican 
Peoples' 
naturalization 
of their 
Nationals. 



The inhabitants of the ceded territory, ac- 
cording to their choice, may return to Russia 
within three years; but if they should prefer 
to remain in the ceded territory, they, with the 
exception of the uncivilized native tribes, shall 
be admitted to the enjoyment of all the rights, 
advantages and immunities of citizens of the 
United States. 

With the avowed purpose of increasing the 
population of their States, the American People, 
from the time of their Declaration of Indepen- 
dence, have made over into Citizens of their 
States all aliens of the white or Caucasian race 
who, as individuals, settled on their lands and 
renounced their former allegiance to the foreign 
states from which they had emigrated. The 
American People purposely made the naturaliza- 
tion of aliens easy for them. The King of 
Great Britain had made the naturalization of 
aliens in his American Colonies difficult. This 
was one of the reasons given for the Declara- 
tion of Independence. 

He (the King of Great Britain) has endeav- 
ored to prevent the population of these States ; 
for that purpose obstructing the laws for the 
Naturalization of Foreigners. 

The American People have always regarded 
themselves and the individual alien as the only 
parties having any interest in their naturaliza- 
tion of the alien. The foreign state in which the 
alien was citizen or subject did, however, con- 
sider that in many cases it had a material 
interest in its National which the American 
naturalization did not extinguish. This interest 
was most often a claim to military service, which 

7 



MY COUNTRY, 'TIS OF THEE 



American 
naturalization 
is not a release 
from a service 
owed to a 
foreign state. 



A merican 
states an 
asylum for 
aliens seeking 
escape from 
military- 
service. 



its citizen or subject was held to owe to it at 
the time of his emigration. 

The American People have been generally and 
generously misled into believing, incorrectly, that 
their naturalization of an alien rightfully dis- 
charged him of liability for any military or other 
service he might, at the time of his emigration, 
be owing or about to owe to the state he was 
leaving. The contrary is the fact. Should the 
alien, after his naturalization, re-enter the do- 
minion of his former state, the former state 
may rightfully enforce payment from him of his 
debt to it of military or other service, despite 
his American Naturalization. 

The lands of the American People have always 
been considered as a safe asylum for citizens or 
subjects of foreign states who intended, in leav- 
ing them, to escape military or other service to 
them. These citizens or subjects of foreign 
states have not even had to be naturalized to 
take advantage of the asylum the American 
States offered. But while the land has been a 
safe asylum, the American ship at sea has not 
been a safe asylum. By the common law of 
nations, a ship has been regarded the same as 
the soil of its state, but the American People 
have rarely had the disposition and naval power 
to make the common law of nations effective for 
them on the sea, so citizens and subjects of 
foreign states, even though naturalized, have not 
found American ships a safe asylum. The offi- 
cers of their foreign states have always seized 
them and taken them off American ships when 
they wanted payment of their citizen's or sub- 
ject's debt of service. 

8 



THE AMERICAN PEOPLE 



Hyphenated 
Citizens. 



In 1917 the lands of the American People 
ceased to be an asylum for alien Nationals who 
came to them to escape payment of their debts 
of military service to the foreign states of their 
birth. 

All foreign citizens or subjects who became 
naturalized American Citizens before paying 
their debts of military or other service to the 
foreign states from which they came, have not 
held that their naturalization released them from 
payment of their debts to foreign states. Many 
have become naturalized American Citizens, 
intending to pay their debts of military service 
to the foreign states whenever the foreign states 
called on them for payment. They hold them- 
selves bound to pay their old debts of service to 
the foreign states, as well as bound to pay their 
new debts of service to the American State which 
has adopted them. These men are real hyphen- 
ated citizens, though the term is commonly applied 
to naturalized Citizens who try, through their 
naturalization, to avoid payment of debts of 
service altogether. Plainly, the kind of hyphen- 
• ated citizens who would pay both debts is to be 
preferred to the kind who would pay neither. 

A requirement of the alien applying for nat- 
uralization, that he shall prove himself as owing 
no debt of military service to the foreign state 
to which he would forswear allegiance, would 
prevent the making of hyphenated American 
Citizens, and the requirement should be made. 

Original The American People at the present time 

purpose of regard their past naturalization of aliens as 

naturalization ■, *• ■, j • , • • 1 e 

having accomplished its original purpose of 



MY COUNTRY, 'TIS OF THEE 



of aliens 
accomplished. 



Aliens incor- 
porated in 
American 
territory by 
treaties not 
now made 
Citizens. 



Changes in 
race and 
ancestry con- 
stitution of 
A merican 
People which 
have been 
made. 



increasing their population. They are now 
beginning the restriction of naturalization, di- 
rectly, by excluding from right of naturalization 
aliens of the yellow and brown races — Asiatics 
and Malays — and, indirectly, by excluding from 
right of settlement in their lands aliens of the 
white race who do not measure up to, and on 
examination pass, certain physical, moral, occu- 
pational, educational and property standards 
made for the purpose by acts of Congress. 

The belief of the American People that the 
further increase of number of Citizens by admis- 
sion of aliens is not desirable, has restrained them 
from making over into Citizens the former sub- 
jects of the King of Spain inhabiting the ceded 
lands of the islands of Porto Rico, Guam and 
the Philippines. Instead, the American People 
hold the inhabitants of these islands incorpo- 
rated in their territory as subjects. 

In the progression of their self-development 
the original homogenity of race and ancestry of 
the American People has become changed. From 
being originally all of the white or Caucasian 
race, a very considerable part is now constituted 
of persons of the black, yellow and brown races. 
From there being a very great preponderance 
in the white race of those of Anglo-Saxon and 
British ancestry, the present preponderance is 
comparatively small. The increase of persons 
of the Latin, Germanic, Slavic and Grecian 
ancestry has been relatively much greater than 
the increase of persons of Anglo-Saxon and 
British ancestry. 

10 



THE AMERICAN PEOPLE 



Further 
change of 
composite of 
races in 
American 
People not 
desired by 
the present 
dominant 
element. 



Exclusion of 
aliens from 
settlement and 
prohibition 
of land 
ownership. 



Further racial change in the composite of the 
present American People through the relative 
increase in the number of persons of the yellow 
and brown races is not regarded by the persons 
of the white race as desirable. An increase 
relatively to their own number of persons of 
other white race ancestry than Anglo-Saxon and 
British is not regarded as desirable by the 
latter. 



The natural 
law of land 
settlement 
by aliens. 



Neither the absolute exclusion of aliens of the 
yellow and brown races from settlement in the 
lands of the American People, nor restricted 
admission with prohibition of land ownership 
3y those admitted, would permanently operate to 
prevent the relative increase of persons of the 
yellow and brown races to persons of the white 
race. Neither means is politically practicable 
to prevent an increase of the proportion of per- 
sons of other white race ancestry than Anglo- 
Saxon and British to the latter. 

Persons of that race who can support them- 
selves by the consumption of a less part of the 
produce of the land than persons of the race in 
present possession, in the end gain the exclusive 
possession of the land, make permanent settle- 
ment of it, exclude persons of the race in present 
possession, and ultimately will take dominion of 
it. This is another way of saying that persons 
of the race or people having the relatively lower 
standard of living, or living at the relatively 
lower cost, in the end get the possession of the 
land or labor field, pushing out and excluding 
persons of the race or people having the rela- 

11 



MY COUNTRY, 'TIS OF THEE 



Prohibition 
of alien 
ownership 
of land 
ineffective 
to prevent 
alien 
colonization. 



lively higher standard of living, or of living at 
the relatively higher cost. This is the natural 
law of colonization by an alien race. 

The American People cannot avoid the effect 
on them of this natural law of alien coloniza- 
tion if they continue to incorporate aliens with 
themselves either as Citizens, or as subjects, or 
as residents with the Citizens' right of private 
land possession. Prohibition of ownership of 
land by aliens would not prevent the effect of 
the natural law. Possession of the land would 
be obtained without taking the title, and the 
alien colonization would follow. 



Absolute 
exclusion of 
aliens from 
settlement. 



The American People cannot avoid the effect 
of the natural law by total exclusion of the aliens 
from settlement in their lands. The exclusion 
would prevent invasion by the aliens in peace, 
but, the difference in the standards of living 
between the aliens in their own lands and the 
American People in theirs continuing, the col- 
onizing invasion by the aliens would ultimately 
come, or be attempted, by way of war. When- 
ever the excluded aliens with the lower standard 
of living become forced to accept starvation, 
that is to say a still lower standard of living, in 
their own lands, or to accept the alternative of 
war with the American People for the right of 
colonization in their lands, they will fight before 
they will starve. 

The only present effective way to restrict alien 

colonization in peace so that it shall be impotent 
would operate , - . - 1 t1 . . ,. 

to restrict alien to change undesirably the present proportions ol 

colonization. races and race ancestry of the American People, 

12 



Laws permit- 
ting entails 



THE AMERICAN PEOPLE 

is for them to make their best lands more valu- 
able to hold themselves than to sell to aliens. 
This can be done by State laws permitting entail, 
the voluntary creation of a prescribed order of 
inheritance of land without right of alienation 
or sale. The best lands will immediately become 
so valuable for entailed estates that aliens will not 
then, as now, be offering the highest price for 
them. Through entailed estates an enormous 
number of Citizens would become attached to their 
soil exclusively and permanently. In the aggre- 
gate the entailed estates would include so much of 
the best lands that restriction of alien coloniza- 
tion would be brought about naturally. There 
would be comparatively little colonizable land 
for the aliens. 

Amendment of The States are now prohibited from enacting 
Ordinance j aws cre ating entails by a provision of the 
of 1787. Ordinance of 1787. The Ordinance of 1787 

is the instrument of the compact of the original 
thirteen States with new States which would 
thereafter be created. All the States are bound 
by it. To empower the States to enact laws of 
entail, the Ordinance of 1787 will first have to 
be amended. All of the States will have to 
adopt the amendment. 

Limitations Such amendment in terms should provide that 

of entailed on ] y ma j e Citizens of a State, born in the 
estates and United States could create or hold a str J c t 
the privileges, ' . i ,i 

immunities and entailed estate which would then pass by the 

obligations. entail to the male heir next in life. The extent 
of an entailed estate should be limited — forty 
acres or less. It would not have to be in one 
piece or in one place, only all in one State. The 
leasing or letting of an entailed estate to aliens 

13 



MY COUNTRY, 'TIS OF THEE 



Effectiveness 
of laws of 
Entail made 
by the limita- 
tions and 
privileges. 



Obligations 
with entailed 
estates would 
operate to 
create Ameri- 
can race instinct 
and the power 
to perpetuate it. 



should be prohibited. Entailed estates should be 
exempt from all inheritance taxes and from 
execution. The obligations of the title holder 
should include military service to the State and 
the United States, and the taking of an oath to 
support the Government in maintaining its re- 
publican form. The penalty for failure to fulfil 
the obligations should be forfeiture of the title 
to the heir. 

The limitation of an entailed estate to a com- 
paratively small area would prevent land mo- 
nopoly by means of entailed estates which was 
the original purpose of the prohibition made in 
the Ordinance of 1787. With such estates so 
limited there would be land enough to provide 
for all American Citizens who would want to 
create entails. The prohibition of leasing and 
letting to aliens would absolutely exclude them 
from settlement on the great body of the best 
lands without the complications which could 
come with exclusion from residence in the terri- 
tory. The exemptions from inheritance taxes 
and execution would be such valuable rights that 
no American Citizen who could, would fail to 
create an entailed estate to have it a place of 
refuge in death where tax assessors, tax col- 
lectors and tax attorneys could not come like 
flocking buzzards to their eats. 

The obligations of the oath of fealty and 
military service with entailed estates would 
operate to create an American race instinct 
springing from its only possible source, perma- 
nent attachment to the soil, and a big force of 
willing-to-fi,8"ht American men bred with that 
instinct. These, together, would maintain the 

14 



THE AMERICAN PEOPLE 

American republican form of government and 
the American dominion of lands against the 
destroying forces of other men of the inhabitants 
— against disruption from within. They would, 
too, be the heart of the military force which 
would resist alien colonization when it would be 
attempted, as it will be from time to time, by 
way of war. The holders of the titles to the 
entailed estates would consciously breed men with 
the race instinct to hold them. Each successive 
holder of the title would want, besides a direct 
heir, at least one alternate for him in the direct 
line. 



Chapter II. 



NATURAL RIGHTS AND RULING RIGHTS 



King of 
Great Britain 
deprives his 
American 
Colonists of 
their rights, 
causing the 
Revolution. 

The colonists' 
doctrine of 
their rights. 



The King's 
Doctrine of 
his colonists' 
rights. 



The cause of the American Revolution, made 
by the Declaration of Independence, was the 
injury done by the King of Great Britain to his 
subjects in the Thirteen Colonies when he took 
from each of them separately rights of the 
person, and from all of them collectively rights 
of ruling or governing. 

The colonists held that each of them had 
certain rights of the person which were un- 
alienable natural rights coming and being with 
each person by Nature, and so inseparable from 
his person. They held that these certain natural 
rights were the equal possession of each of them, 
and as well that all other men had them equally 
with themselves. The colonists also held that 
collectively within their certain several lands, the 
grants of ruling or governing rights theretofore 
made them by Kings of Great Britain in suc- 
cession as paramount lords of the land, could not 
thereafter be taken away or revoked by a King 
of Great Britain. 

The King of Great Britain held contrarywise, 
that his American colonists had no rights of the 
person which he was bound to let them hold, 
and that the King's grants of ruling rights, 
together with the incidents which had been 

16 



NATURAL RIGHTS AND RULING RIGHTS 



created by the colonists' exercise of them, were 
revocable and destroyable by the King as he 
willed from time to time. 

Colonists win Through their victory in the War of the 
War, regain Revolution, the colonists made their doctrine of 

/rom S K^l^ etheir H S htS P revail over that held b y the Kin £' 

rights of They retook the rights he had taken away and 

dominion secured their regained possession by taking from 

over them. ^he King all his overlord rights of dominion or 

ruling in the lands of the Thirteen Colonies, so 

making the Colonies Independent States, in 

which they held all the rights of dominion or 

ruling. 



American 
Citizens have 
two kinds 
of rights. 



Importance of 
distinction 
between the 
rights of 
possession of 
the tivo kinds 
of rights. 



American Citizens in their lands thus possess 
two kinds of rights — natural rights and ruling 
rights or rights of dominion. The natural 
rights they possess are also possessed by their 
subjects and by aliens while residing in their 
lands. The ruling rights or rights of dominion 
the Citizens alone possess. Neither their sub- 
jects nor resident aliens have any part by 
right in the ruling rights of American Citizens, 
except as American Citizens, by their laws grant 
ruling rights to either of them, or by sufferance 
permit their exercise. 

The distinction between the rights of pos- 
session of the natural rights and of the ruling 
rights is important. That there is such a dis- 
tinction has not been very much considered or 
acted upon by American Citizens. Even the 
distinction between natural rights and ruling 
rights has not been sufficiently considered, and 
which are natural rights and which are ruling 

17 



MY COUNTRY 



T I S OF THEE 



Right to 
attack the 
Government 
or persons 
administering 
it is a ruling 
right. 



rights, firmly settled. American Citizens, in con- 
sequence, has not been firm in maintaining their 
exclusive possession of, and sole right by right to 
exercise, the ruling rights in their lands. 

The right by way of published speech or 
writing to attack the manner or mode of the 
exercise of the Citizens' ruling rights by them- 
selves, or to so attack the persons through 
whom, as legislators, officers or courts, they 
exercise their ruling rights, is a ruling right 
possessed only by Citizens as a right. Subjects 
have the right by sufferance. Aliens residing in 
American lands have nothing of the right. 

Aliens resident Published speech or writing by resident aliens 

m American attacking the Government or the persons admin- 
tanas can be • . ', 111.1 1 1^1 
punished when ls ^ nn S * can be absolutely suppressed, and the 
they exercise auen s punished by American Citizens, on the 
this ruling ground that the aliens residing in their lands 
right. have no ruling rights whatever by right. In- 
stead of suppressing the publication of the alien's 
speech or writing which attacks the rule of 
American Citizens on this unquestionable ground 
of no right of the alien, such attempts as have been 
occasionally made at suppression, have been made 
on the questionable grounds of the nature, or of 
the effect, of the matter of the published speech or 
writing. These grounds are questionable be- 
cause opinions will differ as to the nature or 
effect of any speech or writing published. 



Right of 
organization 
and association 
in labor unions 
is a ruling 
right. 



The right of persons to organize and associate 
in labor unions or other industrial units of like 
nature and purposes is a ruling right, not. a 
natural right. Only Citizens possess this ruling 
right. The organization of resident aliens into 

18 



NATURAL RIGHTS AND RULING RIGHTS 

labor unions, or their association with Citizens 
in labor unions, which has been permitted by 
sufferance, can be prohibited and suppressed by 
Citizens through exercise of' their ruling rights, 
on the ground that the resident aliens have not 
the ruling right to organize or associate in labor 
unions. Citizens may grant resident aliens this 
ruling right just as they grant resident aliens 
the right to be shareholders in their corporations. 
They have not yet, however, granted resident 
aliens the right of labor union organization and 
association in this mode, but have, for the time, 
permitted their organization and association by 
sufferance. The Congress has the power to 
grant aliens the right to associate in American 
trade or labor unions under the immigration 
clause of the Constitution. 

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization. 

Natural rights The natural rights of men are all equal rights 

are equal between all men. The measure of the extent of 

rights. any of them ig b y the mle that every man ' s 

natural right ends, is at its limit, at the point 
in its exercise where it meets any other man's 
natural right without conflicting with it. In 
another form this rule is that no one may so 
use his own natural right that it deprives another 
of his natural right. 

Ruling rights The ruling rights of American Citizens do not 
not destructive rightfully destroy any of the natural rights of 

°Ji fas* 1 ™ 1 an y of the inhabitants of their dominion. The 

inhabitants include Citizens, subjects and resi- 
dent aliens. The Declaration of Independence 

19 



MY COUNTRY, 'TIS OF THEE 

affirms for American Citizens that ruling rights 
are instituted to secure natural rights, not to 
destroy them. 

That to secure these (natural) rights (Life, 
Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness), gov- 
ernments are instituted among men, deriving 
their just powers from the consent of the gov- 
erned. That, whenever any form of govern- 
ment becomes destructive of these ends, it is 
the right of the People to alter or abolish it. 



20 



Chapter III. 
THE NATURAL RIGHT TO LIFE 



Definition of 
natural right 
of all men to 
have Life. 



Natural right 
of all men to 
have Life is 
unlimited in 
dominion of 
the American 
People. 



The natural right of all men to Life is the 
right of each man to have himself the posses- 
sion of the material things which support life 
and make it supportable — food, water, air, cloth- 
ing and shelter — together with the possession of 
the use of the land which men occupy in com- 
mon without title, to provide himself with these 
things. It is also the right of each man to him- 
self have private property, together with the 
right to take from, and make private property 
of, the use and produce of the land which men 
occupy in common without title. It is also the 
right of any man to labor for any other man, 
and to take in exchange for his labor, wages, 
which are exchangeable with other men for the 
material things which support life and make it 
supportable. 

The natural right of all the inhabitants of 
the dominion of the American People to Life is 
unlimited. To secure one's life in self-defense 
against the force or intention of another to 
destroy it, one may, if need be, rightfully take 
the life of the other. To secure one's life in 
self-defense against the negligence of another 
which would destroy it without intention, for 
instance, against a negligence of another which 
would expose one to an infectious or contagious 

21 






Natural rights 
to have all 
things which 
support Life 
are unlimited. 



MY COUNTRY, 'TIS OF THEE 

disease, one may, if need be, rightfully restrain 
the other from the negligence by force. 

The natural rights of all the inhabitants to 
have, each for himself, all the material things 
which support Life and make it supportable — 
food, water, air, clothing and shelter — are each 
of them unlimited. To secure to one's self the 
possession of any one or several of them imme- 
diately necessary for the support of his life or 
to make it supportable, against the force or 
intention of another to take them away, one 
may, if need be, rightfully hold his possession 
by force, and restrain the hostile force or inten- 
tion of the other by superior force. To secure 
to one's self the possession of any one or several 
of them immediately necessary for the support 
of his life or to make it supportable, against the 
negligence of another which would, without 
intention, deprive him of them, for instance, 
against a negligence which would expose one's 
food plants or food animals to plant or animal 
diseases which would destroy their usability for 
his food, or which would expose the water which 
would be his drink to a contamination which 
would make it unusable for his drink, one may, 
if need be, rightfully restrain the other from 
the negligence by force. 

Natural right The natural right of all the inhabitants to 

to have private have, each for himself, private property, is 

property is unlimited. To secure his possession of private 
unlimited. . , . l . . r l . 

property against the force or intention of another 

which would take them away from him, one may, 

if need be, rightfully hold his private property 

by force, and may restrain the hostile force or 

intention of the other to take it away by superior 

22 



THE NATURAL RIGHT TO LIFE 



Natural right 
to labor for 
wages is 
unlimited. 



Natural right 
of one person 
to labor for 
wages is equal 
right to that of 
several persons 
in association 
for that 
purpose. 



force. To secure tne possession of his private 
property against the negligence of another which 
would take it away from him, for instance, 
against the negligence of another which would 
expose the private property to destruction by 
fire, one may, if need be, rightfully restrain the 
other from the negligence by force. 

The natural right of any inhabitant to labor 
for another inhabitant for wages is unlimited. 
To secure to one's self this natural right against 
the force or intention of another to deprive him 
of its exercise, one may, if need be, rightfully 
restrain the hostile force or intention of the 
other by superior force. 

Several inhabitants in association with each 
other, for instance, associated as a labor union, 
to work for one or several other inhabitants for 
wages, have no different nor superior right, by 
virtue of the association, or otherwise, to the 
natural right of the single inhabitant. It is a 
more or less popular delusion of a considerable 
part of the inhabitants of America, that the 
contrary is true — that several inhabitants who 
labor for others for wages, when they have 
made themselves into an association and called 
it a labor union, have thereby become invested 
with a superior natural right to labor for other 
inhabitants for wages, to the original natural 
right which each of them possessed before their 
association, and still possesses after making the 
association. 



The natural right of the inhabitant to labor 



Natural right 

watesThi^ame for wa S es is' not ■ ohly as unlimited as the right 
as right to life, to Life, but, in its essence, is the same as the 



23 



MY COUNTRY 



TIS OF THEE 



Co mparatively 
few laws made 
securing right 
of individual 
to labor for 
wages. 



A merican 
People 
through their 
Government 
should provide 
labor on 
public works 



right to Life to many of the inhabitants, and 
equally important. The mass of private prop- 
erty, and the mass or sum of operating capital 
of "the inhabitants of the dominion of the Amer- 
ican People, are both increasing far more rapidly 
than the number of inhabitants, and with them 
the proportion of the inhabitants who labor for 
wages, to those who do not, is increasing. This 
does not necessarily mean that the rich are 
getting richer and the poor getting poorer, but 
merely that the distinction between rich and 
poor, so far as working for wages is concerned, 
is disappearing. Rich as well as poor are now 
giving labor for wages which, in many instances, 
are part paid by themselves as part owners in 
the business hiring them to work. 

Although a great many laws have been made 
by Citizens to secure the right to Life directly, 
for instance, laws which, at the public charge, 
quarantine the sick from the well, provide hos- 
pitals and asylums for the indigent sick, provide 
asylums for indigent orphans, provide free homes 
and pensions for the indigent too aged to labor, 
and provide free prisons for the detention of 
criminals, very few laws have been made to 
secure the right to Life indirectly through secur- 
ing, inviolably, the right to work for wages so 
as to have the material things which support 
Life and make it supportable. 

Laws which would at all times provide work 
for wages on public works, at the public charge, 
for all inhabitants not engaged in work for 
private employers or provided with property 
sufficient for their support without work, are 
laws which American Citizens should make. It 

24 



work. 



THE NATURAL RIGHT TO LIFE 

for all is an obligation of dominion of the American 

unemployed. People to provide, through exercise of their 
ruling right, labor for wages to those inhabitants 
who are unemployed by private employers. In 
other words,, the Government of the American 
People being instituted by them for the purpose, 
among others, of securing the natural right to 
Life to all Men, is bound to secure it, and further 
bound, if possible, to secure it through compell- 
ing among men the recognition of the natural 
rights which provide directly, or indirectly, the 
material things which support Life and make 
it supportable. 

Wage rates for The wage rates at the public charge should 
unemployed De lower than the rates paid by private employers 
on _J!! for the same class of labor, in order to insure 

that private employers would always have all 
the labor they would require without their com- 
peting for the labor with the Government. Such 
public employment of the unemployed would 
probably increase the cost of public works. The 
increase, however, is all the cost charge the 
public would pay to provide employment for the 
unemployed; besides, there is no obligation on 
the Government to build public works at the 
lowest cost, and there is an obligation on it to 
provide employment for the unemployed. There 
are always public works to be built by the Gov- 
ernment at the public charge, as distinguished 
from public works being operated by labor 
under officers at the public charge. The wages 
of labor employed in the operation of public 
works under officers should be the same, not 
less, than wages paid for the same work by 
private employers. 

25 



MY COUNTRY, 'TIS OF THEE 



Tramp evil 
curable by 
providing 
labor for 
wages on 
public works 
at public 
charge. 



Such laws providing labor at wages for the 
unemployed would do very much to end the 
present tramp evil, and to lessen the evil of a 
professional criminal class. Work at wages 
would be provided for tramps and professional 
criminals which they could be compelled to 
accept by force of law, with the alternatives 
that they could always cease working for the 
Government by getting work at higher wages 
from private employers, or cease working for 
wages at all by getting jail and labor without 
wasres. 



26 



Chapter IV. 



NATURAL RIGHTS OF INHABITANTS IN 
THE PUBLIC LANDS 

Definition of The common or public land is all the land, 
public land. including land under water and the water on it, 
in the dominion of the American People, which 
is neither private property of inhabitants, nor 
land dedicated by the People as a site from 
which to accomplish a purpose of their ruling 
rights exercised through their Governments. 

A free, unob- All of the inhabitants of the dominion of the 
structed and American People have a natural right to take 



and have a free, unconditional and unobstructed 



unconditional 
right of way on 

public land is n S ht of way for themselves and possessions 
natural right over the common or public land. This natural 
of inhabitants, right is unlimited. It is the same right for all 
persons of the inhabitants and for all their 
movable possessions. It is the same right, 
whether the right of way taken is over upland 
public land or over water-covered public land. 
It is the same right for several persons together 
as for a single person. It is the same right, 
whether the right of way taken is transient and 
unmarked, or permanent and marked. It is the 
same right, whether the right of way taken 
permanently is for a footpath, a wagon road, a 
railroad, a ditch, a pipe line, or a pole and wire 
line. 

27 



MY COUNTRY, 'TIS OF THEE 



public land 
as over public 
water. 



Natural right A man in a motor car has the same natural 

to right of way r jght to a free, unconditional, unobstructed right 
same over .r , . i 1 * 1 • 1 i • 

of way over the upland public land as a man in 

a motor boat has to a free, unconditional, unob- 
structed right of way over the water on the 
under-water public land. A man has the same 
natural right to a right of way to drive his 
cattle over the upland public land on their own 
feet, that he has to carry his cattle in boats over 
the public water on the under-water public land. 
A man has the same natural right to take and 
have for himself a right of way for a railroad 
line, ditch line, pipe line, or pole and wire line, 
over the public land, that he has to take and have 
himself a right of way for his solitary, transient 
nassing over the public land. 

Laws which Laws which provide against the obstructing 

secure natural Q f r jghts f wav , which define the width of per- 

r f wayon manent rights of way, and which provide for 

public land. unobstructed crossings by one permanent right 

of way by another permanent right of way, all 

secure the natural right, and such laws are 

made in the rightful exercise of their ruling 

rights by American Citizens. 

Laws which Laws which impose a toll, fee, tax, or money 

destroy natural c h ar g e to be paid by the inhabitants, or by any 
ng t o ng s q £ f^^ £ or an y r jght f wa y over the public 

public land. land, and laws which make conditions which the 
inhabitants, or any of them, must conform to in 
order to take and have any right of way over 
the public land, destroy the natural right, and 
such laws are made in the wrongful exercise of 
their ruling powers by American Citizens. 

28 



RIGHTS OF INHABITANTS IN PUBLIC LANDS 



Taking of wild 
game and fish 
from public 
land is a 
natural right. 



Natural right 
to take wild 
game and- fish 
from public 
land is 
unlimited. 



Laws which 
secure natural 
right to take 
and have wild 
game and fish 



All the inhabitants of the dominion of the 
American People have a natural right to take 
and have wild game and fish from the public 
land. Wild game and fish do not belong to any 
person until they are taken. They do not belong 
to the American People, although they live in 
their dominion. They are free things by Nature 
— food or clothing produced free by Nature for 
all men to take and have. 

There are no limitations on the natural right 
of all the inhabitants to take and have wild game 
and fish from the public land. The right is the 
same, whether the wild game is on the upland 
public land, or on the public water over the 
under-water public land. The right is the same, 
whether the fish is in fresh-water streams and 
lakes on the upland public land or in the salt 
water of bays and oceans over under-water 
public lands. The right is the same, whether 
the wild game and fish are taken for the food or 
clothing of the person taking, or to be sold by 
the person taking to become food or clothing 
for other persons. It makes no difference in the 
natural right, for instance, of a hunter to shoot 
and have wild ducks, whether he shoots them 
to use himself for food, or shoots them to sell 
to other persons in order to get money with 
which to buy himself something else than ducks 
for food. Either way, the shooting of the wild 
ducks provides the shooter with food. 

Laws which define certain seasons within 
which wild game or fish may not be taken; laws 
which prohibit the taking of wild game or fish 
for a term of years; laws which provide for 
assisting the increase of wild game and fish at 

29 



MY COUNTRY, 'TIS OF THEE 



from the the public charge; laws which limit the number, 

public land. size and sex of wild game which may be taken 

by a person; and laws which limit the size and 
number of fish which may be taken by a person, 
secure the natural right. So, also, do laws 
which protect the natural feeding and breeding 
grounds of wild game and fish; laws which pro- 
vide for clear waterways for fish over dams and 
around fish nets and traps; laws which provide 
for destroying natural enemies of wild game and 
fish, and laws which prohibit the taking of wild 
game and fish with the intention of wasting 
them after taking. All laws with such purposes 
are made in the rightful exercise of their ruling 
rights by American Citizens. 

Sport of killing For instance, a law providing that wild game 



wild game and 
fish not a 
natural right. 



Sport of 
Killing Wild 
Game and fish 
is a privilege 
of dominion. 



or fish may not be taken except to provide food, 
clothing, or a product which is an article of 
commerce, would secure the natural right and 
be made in a rightful exercise of the ruling 
power. In effect, it would be a prohibition of 
hunting and fishing with no other object than 
the sport of killing. 

The sport of killing wild game and fish for the 
sport of killing solely, is not a natural right. It 
is not a right at all. It is a privilege of dominion. 
The Citizens of a State may create this privilege. 
They may grant the privilege as they will, except 
that as to themselves the right of it must be 
equal. They may refuse the privilege to aliens, 
subjects, and Citizens of other States, or to 
either of them. They may rightfully, by law, 
require that the privilege be taken by permit or 

30 



RIGHTS OF INHABITANTS IN PUBLIC LANDS 



Laws which 
would secure 
natural right 
to take wild 
game and fish 
without 
causing their 
extinction. 



license, and by payment of a fee, or by compli- 
ance with any other condition. But the privilege 
the Citizens create must not destroy the natural 
right, which is the possession of every inhabitant, 
because wild game and fish are food and clothing 
for men first, and sport for the rulers of men 
last. 

If there were not enough wild game and fish 
for all inhabitants wishing to take them within 
the limitations made by rightful laws, then laws 
providing for the free registration of all such 
persons, so that on notice from an officer having 
the matter in charge, they would become enabled, 
in the order of their registration, to use their 
hunting and fishing rights on the public land 
without destroying the rights of the others in 
turn following to take an equal portion, would 
be made in the rightful exercise of the ruling 
power. 

Such laws would secure the natural right 
to take and have wild game and fish to every 
person desiring to exercise his natural right. 
They would be practically self-executing, because 
the lawful possession of wild game or fish would 
be based on its having been taken by a registered 
person having the right to take it. 

Laws which Laws which impose a license fee, tax or any 

destroy natural charge to be paid by the inhabitants, or by any 
of them, to officers for the license to hunt wild 
game or fish on the public land in the exercise 
of the natural right, destroy the natural right. 
Laws which provide that wild game or fish may 
only be taken in pursuance of the natural right 

31 



right to take 
wild game 
and fish. 



MY COUNTRY, 'TIS OF THEE 



Grazing 
domestic 



under a permit granted by an officer in his dis- 
cretion; laws which prohibit the sale of wild 
game or fish, or of products obtained from them ; 
or which prohibit their transportation by com- 
mon carriers, destroy the natural right. All 
such laws are made in the wrongful exercise of 
their ruling right by American Citizens. 

All of the inhabitants of the dominion of the 
American People have a natural right to graze 
on pvblic land or pasture their domestic animals on the public 
is a natural land. There is no limitation of this natural 
right. right. It is the same, whether one animal be 

grazed or ten thousand animals be pastured at 
the same time. It is the same right, whether 
horses, cattle, sheep, goats, hogs or turkeys are 
the animals grazed or pastured. The grazing 
of domestic animals is nothing but an indirect 
way whereby the owners of the animals take 
food and clothing for themselves from the public 
land. The natural produce of the land — grass 
and other forage plants — is taken by the animals 
and converted into food and clothing for their 
owners. 

Laws which Laws which prevent the fencing of the public 

secure natural j an( j SQ ,, s tQ ma k e t } ie pasturage on it exclusive 

right to grazing , . . 1 i- 1 i« 1 ... 

on public land. and private, instead of public; laws which pro- 
vide for destroying natural enemies of domestic 
animals in the public land, and laws which pre- 
serve the natural pasture unimpaired, from sea- 
son to season, by limiting the number and kind 
of grazing animals seasonally, secure the natural 
right, and are made in the rightful exercise of 
their ruling right by American Citizens. 

32 



RIGHTS OF INHABITANTS IN PUBLIC LANDS 



Laws which 
would secure 
the natural 
right to 
grazing on 
public land. 



If all the inhabitants desiring to exercise the 
right of grazing on the public land, together 
have more animals than the number which can 
seasonally graze on it under the limitations made 
by rightful laws, a law providing for the free 
registration of the numbers in the several herds, 
so that on notice from the officer having the 
matter in charge their owners would become 
enabled, in the order of their registration, to 
exercise their grazing rights through a period 
embracing a term of several seasons, in place 
of a single season, would be made in the rightful 
exercise of the ruling power. Such laws would 
be practically self-executing. If the owner of 
the grazing animals did not have the registra- 
tion notice of the officer, the grazing of his ani- 
mals would be unlawful. 

Laws which Laws which impose a license fee, tax, rent or 

destroy natural arL y cnar g e to be paid by the inhabitants, or by 
any of them, to an officer for the privilege, or 
for his permission, to graze domestic animals on 
the public land, destroy the natural right. Laws 
which impose conditions of personal service to 
be rendered by the inhabitants, or by any of 
them, to officers, as consideration for the priv- 
ilege of grazing their domestic animals on the 
public land; and laws which provide for the 
renting out or leasing out of the public land by 
officers for grazing use, destroy the natural 
right. All such laws are made in the wrongful 
use of their ruling right by American Citizens. 



right of grazing 
domestic 
animals on 
public land. 



Right to cut 
timber on 
public land a 



All the inhabitants of the dominion of the 
American People have a natural right to take 

MtwaTrieht an( * nave tne trees g row ^ n S naturally on the 
public land. They have the right to take them 



33 



MY COUNTRY 



TIS OF THEE 



Forest on 
public land 
not a sacred 
institution. 



Laws which 
secure natural 
right to take 
trees or timber 
off the public 
land. 



and make fuel, lumber or other products from 
them. There is no limitation on this natural 
right. The right is the same, whether the taking 
of the trees is done by the ax of a single inhab- 
itant, to make shelter for himself and to have 
fuel with which to make his life supportable, or 
whether it is done by a large number of inhab- 
itants with sawmills and other machinery, to 
provide lumber for the building of cities or to 
provide their inhabitants with fuel. The right 
is the same, whether the trees are taken in 
clearing the public land so that a settler may 
plant it, or taken in clearing it so that it can 
be mined. 

There is nothing sacred about a forest on the 
public land as such, that the natural rights of 
all Men give way to insure that it shall not be 
cut by any of them except at the pleasure of an 
officer, a public servant of all Men. The trees 
of the forest are simply a crop produced by 
Nature from the soil of the public land, and, 
like all other crops produced by Nature from 
the soil of the public land, the tree crop is subject 
to being taken and had in the exercise of their 
natural rights by the inhabitants. 

Laws which prevent the avoidable waste of 
the forests on the public land by fire or other- 
wise; laws which provide for destroying natural 
insect enemies of the trees on the public land 
at the public charge, and laws which provide for 
planting trees on the public land to replace those 
taken by the inhabitants from time to time, 
secure the natural right. All such laws are made 
in the rightful exercise of their ruling right by 
the American People. 

34 



RIGHTS OF INHABITANTS IN PUBLIC LANDS 



Laws which Laws which make a stumpage charge, or any 

HhtLTake Charge t0 be paid t0 an ° fficer by the inhabitants > 

"fees or Umber or ty an ^ of them > for the Privilege, or for the 

from the permit of the officer, to take trees or cut timber 

public land. from the public land, are wrong laws, because 

they destroy the natural right. Laws which 

provide for the Government, by officers, selling 

the trees or timber by any mode separately from 

the land on which they stand, destroy the natural 

right. 

Laws which prohibit the inhabitants from cut- 
ting and taking trees from the public land, and 
laws which provide that trees may be cut, and 
the wood or lumber taken from the public land, 
only under condition that the inhabitants cutting 
the trees shall render free service to an officer; 
for instance, that they shall give him for . the 
privilege, free labor in building roads and trails 
and extinguishing fires in the forest on the public 
land, destroy the natural right. 



No harm but 
much benefit 
resulting from 
taking trees 
from the 
public land 
by natural 
right. 



All such laws are made in the wrongful exer- 
cise of their ruling right by the American People. 

If it be said that the inhabitants will take all 
the trees or timber from the public land if there 
are no laws restraining the taking the answer is : 
first, that the inhabitants never have, at any 
period during the dominion of the American 
People, taken any more trees or timber from the 
public land than they needed at the time of the 
taking, and, second, that they have in all periods 
of the first one hundred years of that dominion 
taken all the trees or timber they needed from 
the public land as they needed them. There was 
no harm done by the taking, but, on the con- 
trary, much benefit was done the inhabitants. 

35 



MY COUNTRY, 'TIS OF THEE 



Right to mine 
and to have 
the proceeds 
of mining on 
the public 
land is a 
natural right. 



Between 1848, for instance, when the settle- 
ment of California was begun, and 1880, the 
inhabitants of the territory now embraced in the 
eleven Rocky Mountain and Pacific Coast States, 
took about all the timber they used in building 
their homes and cities, and consumed in their 
mining and other industries, from the public 
land. It cannot be seen that harm was done any 
of the inhabitants of the dominion of the Ameri- 
can People by the taking of this timber. . 

All of the inhabitants of the dominion of the 
American People have a natural right to take 
and have the metals and ores and the non- 
metallic minerals from the public land, together 
with the right to explore, by way of mining, in 
the soil of the public land to discover them. 
There are no limitations on this natural right. 
It is the same right, whether gold, silver, tin, 
quicksilver, copper, lead, radium, antimony, zinc, 
iron, nickel or any of their ores are mined and 
taken, or whether diamonds, coal, graphite, sul- 
phur, petroleum, salt, saltpeter, borax, gypsum, 
lime rock or any other non-metallic mineral, are 
mined and taken. 

It is the same right, whether the metals and 
minerals are taken in their solid forms from the 
soil of the public land directly, or whether they 
are taken indirectly from the soil, by first taking 
the water from the soil which contains them in 
solution. It is the same right, whether it is 
exercised to take and have gold from the public 
land in California, or whether it is exercised to 
take and have coal from the public land in 
Alaska. There are no royal minerals or metals 
in the public land. All metals and minerals in 

36 



RIGHTS OF INHABITANTS IN PUBLIC LANDS 



Laws which 
secure the 
natural right 
to mine in the 
public land 
and to have 
the proceeds. 



it look alike in the light of the natural right to 
take any or all of them. 

Laws which declare the size of a tract of the 
public land, or of the mining claim on it, which 
a miner may have exclusive possession of during 
t,he period in which he is exploring and digging 
into its soil for metals, ores or non-metallic 
minerals, and removing them when found, secure 
the natural right. Laws which define the amount 
of mining labor, or the extent of mining digging 
by shaft or tunnel, which a miner must do in 
a stated period in order that his possession of 
the mining claim tract of public land shall not 
become forfeit to some other miner, secure the 
natural right. 

Laws which provide a form or mode of loca- 
tion of mining claims, and for records of notices 
of location of mining claims and of performance 
of mining labor on them, secure the natural 
right. Laws which provide for the disposal of 
the waste spoil of mining after the metals, ores 
or non-metallic minerals are recovered, and laws 
which provide for the safety of persons engaged 
in mining labor, secure the natural right. 

All such laws are made in the rightful exercise 
of their ruling right by the American People. 

Laws which Laws which make a license fee or charge to 

destroy natural be {d fo an officer b ^ inhabitants, or by 

right to mine r ,, r ,« . ., . . . J 

on public land an - v of them > for the privilege of permission to 

and to have explore or prospect for metals and ores, and to 

proceeds. mine in the public land, destroy the natural right. 

Laws which require payment of a royalty (the 

term, there being no American equivalent, is 

borrowed from Great Britain, where the King 

37 



MY COUNTRY, 'TIS OF THEE 

has, or once had, a royal share or rake-off of all 
the gold and silver mined by his subjects) to 
an officer from the metals, ores or non-metallic 
minerals mined and taken from the public land, 
destroy the natural right. Laws which make 
a rent charge to be paid an officer for the public 
land embraced in mining claims, destroy the 
natural right. 

Laws which compel miners to sell to an officer 
at a price fixed by him, any produce of their 
mining in the public land, for instance, radium 
ores, destroy the natural right. Laws which 
prohibit mining in the public land, for instance, 
laws prohibiting the mining of coal in the public 
land of Alaska and prohibiting the mining of 
the phosphate minerals in the public land in 
Wyoming and other States, destroy the natural 
right. 

Laws which reserve or set apart public land 
to be mined commercially by an officer; laws 
which give an officer a preference to mine and 
take a mineral over an inhabitant, and laws 
which provide for the leasing by an officer of 
public land to be mined, destroy the natural 
right. 

All such laws are made in the wrongful exer- 
cise of their ruling right by the American People. 

Right to take All of the inhabitants of the dominion of the 

water from the American People have a natural right to take 
public land is , t r t1 -, . , ,, 

a natural right. and have for al ! their us ? s and Purposes the 
water on the public land which is not drink. The 
right to take and have water which is drink, is 
a natural right of all the inhabitants for them- 
selves and their domestic animals, whether the 

38 



RIGHTS OF INHABITANTS IN PUBLIC LANDS 



regard to use 
made of water. 



water is on the public land or not. The water 
which is drink cannot be taken and had for any 
other uses and purposes of water. There are no 
limitations on the natural right to take and have 
water on the public land which is not drink. 

Right to take The natural right to take and have water on 

water not drink the bHc hnd whkh ig mt dHnk - the g 
same without i li lt . • , ■, r ,, 

whether the water is taken for the private uses 
and purposes of the inhabitant who takes or 
appropriates it, or whether it is taken to be sold 
to other inhabitants for their uses and purposes. 
The right is the same,, whether the uses which 
are made of the water consume it or destroy it 
as fresh water, as, for instance, irrigation, or 
do not consume it or destroy it as fresh water, 
as, for instance, mining and the generation of 
power and electricity. 

Riparian rights Riparian rights, private property, may prevent 
efined. May the ta ^j ng . and having of the water on public 
land which is not drink. Riparian rights is the 
law name which has been given to a private 
possession of land under water, together with the 
water on it, where the right of possession, with 
the actual possession of both the land and the 
water at will, is held without title to the land 
under the water, by the holder of the title to the 
upland bordering the land under the water. 



orevent taking 
of water from 
public land. 



The possession 
of riparian 
rights in the 
States. 



The owners of the title to uplands bordering 
land under water in the original thirteen of the 
States of the American People possessed riparian 
rights before the States came into existence. 
Riparian rights being property, they continued 
to hold their possession afterwards. The People 
of some of the States which came into existence 

39 



MY COUNTRY, 'TIS OF THEE 



later, granted riparian rights to the holders of 
the title to uplands bordering land under water 
in their States. The People of the remaining 
vStates have not granted riparian rights. In 
these States the holders of the title to uplands 
bordering land under water do not have the right 
of possession, with the actual possession at will, 
of the land under water and the water, unless 
they have title to the land under the water. 

Riparian rights It is in the States where there are riparian 
in States ^ rights that their presence may prevent the taking 

where existent Q j water Qn ^ pub ij c land wri i c h is not drink. 

prior taking ^ e n °lder of riparian rights takes the actual 
of water which possession of the water by having it cover the 
is not drink. situs of the rights, or flow over it, undiminished 
in quantity and unimpaired in quality. So 
riparian rights on fresh-water streams above 
the ebb and flood of the tides, have the effect 
of a prior taking of that part of the water of 
the streams which is not drink, against the 
taking of it on the public land up-stream from 
the situs of the riparian rights, for a purpose or 
use which would diminish the stream flow, or 
cover of water, over the situs of the riparian 
rights. 



Person taking 
water which 
is drink does 
not become the 
owner but 
merely holds 
for the con- 
sumers of the 
drink. 



Since the part of the water which is drink 
is indeterminate in quantity, it is unseparable as 
such from the part of the water which is not 
drink. So, in the taking on the public land of 
water which is not drink, the part of the water 
which is drink is also taken. But, as to the latter 
part, the taker does not become the owner, and 
cannot dispose of the right to it. Instead, he 
holds it subject to its being taken at will by the 
inhabitants, all of whom have the natural right 

40 



RIGHTS OF INHABITANTS IN PUBLIC LANDS 

to it as their drink. The taker, if he delivers 
their drink to the inhabitants at his expense, is 
entitled to be paid for the service, but he is not 
entitled to be paid a price for it as property. On 
his sale of the part of the water which is not 
drink he is entitled to make a price, and have 
the chance of a profit, the same as from the sale 
of any other article. 

Distinction If, in considering many of the questions which 

between water ar j se from time to time among the inhabitants 

which is drink concern i n p- water, and rights to water, there be 

and water 

not drink. clearly kept in consideration the distinction be- 

tween water which is drink and water which is 
not drink, there should be little difficulty in 
arriving at correct conclusions. 

Laws which Laws which establish a rule of measure for 

rThTtTtTke 1 the taking ° f Water ° n the Publlc knd; laWS 
water from & wmcn provide for the form and mode of public 

public land. notices of intention to take water on the public 

land, and laws which provide for the protection 

of the quality of water on the public land from 

impairment by acts of the inhabitants, secure the 

natural rights to both that part of the water on 

the public land which is drink, and that part 

which is not drink. All such laws are made in 

the rightful exercise of their ruling right by 

American Citizens. 

Laws which Laws which require a license fee to be paid 

destroy natural t an officer « th inhabitants, or by any of 
right to take . , , J . ., ' . . . J / , 

water from them, ior the privilege or permission of the 

public land. officer, to take water on the public land, destroy 
the natural right. Laws which require the pay- 
ment to an officer of a charge for water taken 
on the public land; for instance, a law making a 
charge of ten cents, payable to an officer, per 

41 



MY COUNTRY, 'TIS OF THEE 

ton of ice cut and taken from public waters, 
destroy the natural right. Laws which require 
the payment to an officer of a charge for a par- 
ticular use of water taken or appropriated on the 
public land ; for instance, a law making a charge 
of one dollar per horsepower year for electric 
power generated from the fall of water taken on 
the public land, destroy the natural right. 

Laws which require the payment to an officer 
of a charge for articles manufactured by the 
use of water taken on the public land; for in- 
stance, a law making a charge of one dollar per 
ton of commercial nitrates manufactured by 
using electric current produced from water- 
power of water taken on the public land, destroy 
the natural right. 

Laws which require as a consideration or 
price to be paid for the privilege or permission 
of an officer to take water on ' the public land, 
that the inhabitant holding the privilege or 
permit, contract and agree with the officer or 
officers that they, or other officers named, shall 
fix the sale price of the water or of the products 
or articles made by its use; for instance, a law 
requiring that the holder of the permit stipulate 
with an officer, as a consideration for his per- 
mission to take the water, that the Boards of 
Trustees or other officers of cities in which 
electric light and power produced with the use 
of the water are sold to the inhabitants, shall 
fix the sale prices of the same by a particular 
rule or arbitrarily at their pleasure, destroy the 
natural right. 

42 



RIGHTS OF INHABITANTS IN PUBLIC LANDS 

Laws which require as consideration to be 
paid for the privilege or permission of an officer 
to take or appropriate water on the public land, 
that the holder of the permit shall serve certain 
officers or certain inhabitants with water or 
electric light or electric power free, or at cost, 
destroy the natural right. Laws which reserve 
or withdraw water on public land from being 
taken by the inhabitants, or by any of them, for 
a particular use, or for any use, destroy the 
natural right. 

Laws which provide that the inhabitants, or 
any of them, who would hold the privilege or 
permit of an officer to take water on the public 
land, shall, before taking the water, file maps 
of surveys and plans and estimates of the pro- 
posed water taking and water using works with 
an officer or with several officers, and shall then 
only have the privilege or permission conditioned 
on the approval by the officer or officers of the 
surve)'S, plans and estimates, and not otherwise, 
destroy the natural right. 

All such laws are made in the wrongful exer- 
cise of their ruling right by American Citizens. 

Right to reside All of the inhabitants of the dominion of the 
on public land American People have a natural right to make 
H a h " at a residence on the public land, together with the 

right to plant and cultivate the soil, and to take 
and have the produce of their planting and culti- 
vation. There are no limitations on this natural 
right. 

Right to reside The natural right to reside on the public land 
ore public land j s ^he same whether the residence taken is in a 
same without ^ Qr h()use Qn the upland pubHc land> or 

43 



MY COUNTRY, 'TIS OF THEE 

reference to whether the residence taken is in a boat or a 
purpose or houseboat on public waters over under-water 
reason for public land. The right is the same, whether the 
residence taken is that of one inhabitant for one 
day, or whether the residence taken is that of 
many inhabitants continuously, so long as the 
land is public land. The right is the same, 
whether the residence taken be for trade or labor 
within a city on the public land, or to farm on 
or mine in the public land, or simply to pass a 
vacation period in rest and recreation on a free 
camp ground. 

Laws which Laws which protect the public land from the 

secure natural establishment of nuisances on it which would 
right to reside , ., r , r , . , 

on public land. make lt unfi t for Purposes of residence, secure 
the natural right, and such laws are made in the 
rightful exercise of their ruling rights by Ameri- 
can Citizens. 

Laws which Laws which require the payment to an officer 

destroy natural Q f a f ee or ren £ cnar2 r e by £ ne inhabitants, or by 
right to reside <• ,1 <• ,i • •« • r 

o bl' I d an y them, tor the privilege or permission of 

an officer, to reside on the public land, destroy 
the natural right. Laws which require the in- 
habitants, or any of them, to lease tracts of 
public land for camps or other residence sites, 
destroy the natural right. Laws which require 
occupants of public land for farm purposes to 
give indentured service, either free or for pay- 
ment, to officers in the protection of forests from 
fire, or to give military service, as has been 
proposed, as part of the consideration to be paid 
for the privilege or permission of officers to 
reside on and farm public land, destroy the 
natural right. Laws which prohibit residence 
on the public land to any of the inhabitants; 

44 



RIGHTS OF INHABITANTS IN PUBLIC LANDS 



Natural rights 
in public land, 
rights of the 
soil, natural 
right to Life, 
mean the 
same thing. 



Difference in 
possession of 
rights of the 
soil by inhab- 
itants of Amer- 
ican States 
and European 
States. 



which prohibit farming it, or which prohibit 
residence on it for any named purpose of trade 
or occupation, destroy the natural right. All 
such laws are made in the wrongful exercise of 
their ruling rights by American Citizens. 

All the natural rights which all of the inhab- 
itants have in the public land, each of them has 
himself in land which is his property. These 
natural rights in the public land, integral in the 
natural right to Life, are thus the natural rights 
of the soil, since they spring from actual pos- 
session of the soil. So, whether the natural 
right to Life, or the natural rights to have the 
things which support Life and make it support- 
able, or the natural rights to the soil, or simply 
human rights, are named, each stands for and 
means the same thing, and not a different thing. 

In the dominion of the American People all 
of the inhabitants have the natural rights of the 
soil, whether they have property in the soil or 
none. In the dominions of most of the European 
states only those owners of property in the soil 
whose families are the permanent rulers of the 
dominion in their states, have the right of the 
natural rights of the soil. Self claimed by those 
of the inhabitants, the remainder acquiesce. 
They, the great majority of the inhabitants, have 
only such rights of the soil as the landlord rulers 
of the states may have granted them as priv- 
ileges, as was their pleasure, or as they were 
forced. The Magna Charta is largely a grant 
of rights of the soil to part of the inhabitants of 
England which was obtained by force of their 
arms from their overlord, the King. 

45 



MY COUNTRY, 'TIS OF THEE 



The difference of possession of rights of the 
soil is fundamental in the institutions of domin- 



American 

People with 

intention made • . , 

difference in lon of the Am encan People and the British. 

their beginning. ^ ne difference was made with intention by the 
American People when they separated them- 
selves and their soil from the dominion of the 
King of Great Britain. 



A merican 
People now 
destroying the 
difference of 
institutions 
they made in 
beginning. 



Reversion of 
American 
institutions 
toward type 
discarded. 



Prwilege made 
by Men who 
rule, from 
natural rights 
filched from 
men ruled 
by them. 



But, having begun their institution of domin- 
ion with the intentional difference of their inhab- 
itants' rights of the soil from those of the 
inhabitants of the Kingdom of Great Britain, 
which they had left, the American People, in the 
middle of their second century of self-dominion, 
are now about destroying their inhabitants' pos- 
session of the rights of the soil, and about 
destroying with them their Citizens' equality of 
right of dominion and ruling. 

What is happening, if, through being allowed 
to continue happening, it happens, is a reversion 
of the American People's institution of dominion 
— a reversion, though, that is unlikely to come 
true to the Great Britain type, but likely to be 
a bastard of it with the Russian type. 

Natural rights are free rights. They are the 
birthgift of Nature to the man — to the indi- 
vidual person. Ruling rights are an invention 
of Men. With ruling rights Men make priv- 
ilege to sell to other men who do not rule. Priv- 
ilege is the stock in trade of Men who rule other 
men. By selling it to the other men they main- 
tain and increase their rule over them. But the 
privilege Men who rule make, and sell to other 
men whom they rule, is always made from some 
natural right which they have, unseen or unrec- 
ognized, first niched from men whom they rule. 

46 



RIGHTS OF INHABITANTS IN PUBLIC LANDS 



American 
People made 
their Govern- 
ment to he 
impersonal 
Law so that it 
should exist 
forever without 
privilege. 



Men who rule have niched the natural right 
to the Pursuit of Happiness from other men 
whom they ruled, and then have sold part of it 
back to them as a privilege— religion. 

Men who rule have niched the natural right 
to Liberty from other men whom they ruled, 
calling them then their slaves, and afterwards 
have sold part of it back to them as a privilege 
— that they should thereafter by right call them- 
selves subjects instead of slaves. 

Men who rule have niched natural rights of 
the soil from other men whom they ruled, and 
have then sold them back part, never all, as a 
privilege — that they should pay the Men who 
ruled them for some of the right to Life, all 
of which Nature had given them free. 

The Men who, as the American People, set 
up their rule by themselves, for themselves, did 
this with intention that their rule should be 
maintained and increased without making or 
selling privilege. To insure this intention for- 
ever, as they believed in their beginning, they 
made all of themselves equal persons in respect 
of right of ruling, so there should be no market 
among themselves for privilege. They made 
their governments to be impersonal govern- 
ments of the Law — governments which could 
only be sustained by their common consent, since 
the Law, through being impersonal could neither 
pay, nor be paid, privilege. 

The persons through whom their impersonal 
Law functions in self-judging and in administra- 
tion of their governments, they declared to be 
their servants, which is to say servants of the 

47 



MY COUNTRY, 'TIS OF THEE 



A merican 
People in 
beginning 
undertook to 
make filching 
of natural 
rights 
impossible. 



impersonal Law, bound by the Law as them- 
selves not to make and sell privilege. 

They had seen that in the countries of Europe, 
privilege which was made and sold by Men who 
ruled, was made by them from the natural rights 
which they filched from men under their rule, 
so they said they would have none of such Men 
in their system of government. Instead, they 
undertook to make them forever impossible in 
their dominion. They turned the true light on 
their niching of natural rights from the men 
they ruled. They said that natural rights were 
self-evident, free and unalienable. That was the 
true light, and enough light. 

Yet, despite the intention of the Men who 
made the beginning of the American People, the 
Men who have succeeded them are failing in 
carrying it out. Men who rule have come into 
their 'governments. These Men who rule filch 
natural rights from the others of us, and make 
and vend privilege to maintain and increase their 
rule. Particularly have they niched from the 
others of us natural rights of the soil, natural 
rights of the public land, because it was easiest 
to filch that which the others of us seemed not 
to know we had. 

Mass of wrong In their beginning the laws which destroyed 
laws destruc- tne inhabitants' rights of the public land were 
we oj na ura £ ew ^ ^^ ^ e cnan g e wn ich they effected did not 
inhabitants in seem appreciable. It was regarded as negligible, 
the public land and that if anything there was gain for the 
made since common good. That the laws effected a destruc- 
year 1900. ^ on f natural rights of the public land was not 

realized, nor that privilege was taking the place 

48 



American 
People failing 
to prevent 
filching of 
natural rights 
and making of 
privilege. 



RIGHTS OF INHABITANTS IN PUBLIC LANDS 



Wrong laws 
have made 
privilege in 
public land 
where before 
was natural 
right. 



Had same 
wrong laws 
existed in 



of the destroyed natural rights. Since the year 
1900 laws of the kind which destroy the inhab- 
itants' natural rights and create privilege in their 
place, have been made in constantly increasing 
numbers. The change which they have effected 
is so considerable that there is now, in 1919, 
nothing left of the natural rights of the public 
land in the inhabitants' possession. The right 
of the public land is wholly a privilege, made so 
by the once servants who now rule by the priv- 
ilege they make and sell. All such laws are 
wrong laws. 

These wrong laws require payments in money, 
property, or indentured services, or in all of 
them, to be made to officers for the privilege in 
the public land to that which before was free by 
virtue of being a natural right of the inhabitants. 
They vest in officers the power of granting or 
withholding privilege in the public land to that 
which before any man could take or leave as he 
himself willed. 

These wrong laws have made a crime of the 
taking of trees, timber, coal, petroleum, and 
water from the public land without permit from 
an officer, and deprive men of liberty and prop- 
erty as penalty for committing the crime, where 
before, trees, timber, coal, petroleum and water 
were taken in uncounted quantities from the 
public land by the whole populations of twenty- 
five States, without the taking being held to be 
crime, or the takers being tried and convicted 
as criminals. 

Had such wrong laws been made and en- 
forced through the last quarter of the first cen- 
tury of the dominion of the American People. 

49 



MY COUNTRY, 'TIS OF THEE 

period the period from 1848 to 1876, the territory of 

1848-1876 their dominion west of the Missouri River, had 

ere wou ^ e y con tinued to hold it through that period, 

settlement of would, in 1876, have had no more and different 

Western States, inhabitants than it had in 1848. California, 

however, would not have been held. It would 

have become an independent State, taken out of 

the Union by its inhabitants, and with it would 

likely have gone from the American Dominion 

all of the land west of the Rocky Mountains. 

Enforcement of With only part of these wrong laws enforced 

Z^ed™^™ in Alaska sinCe 1900 > that vast land haS n ° more 
development inhabitants in 1919 than it had in 1900. Had 
of Alaska. none of these wrong laws been enforced in 

Alaska, it would have become, since 1900, sev- 
eral States, through receiving an immigration 
from the present States, the like of which has 
not been known since the emigration from the 
States east of the Missouri River peopled and 
erected the States of California and Oregon. 

The enforcement, in 1919, in Alaska of all the 
wrong laws which destroy natural rights in the 
public land, would bring about the self-eviction 
of the present population, because it could avoid 
the enforcement of these laws by emigration. 
The population of Alaska replacing these emi- 
grants would be constituted of officers with their 
indentured servants — hunters and fishermen — 
the latter taking wild game and fish at the pleas- 
ure and by permission of officers, and the pay- 
ment to them of some kind of license fee. 



50 



Chapter V. 

NATURAL RIGHT OF INHABITANTS TO 
HAVE PRIVATE PROPERTY. 

Natural right In addition to laws which destroy all the in- 
to have private habitants' natural rights of the soil in the public 
P ro P er y ls land, other laws have been made through the 
law r s °made by further wrongful exercise of their ruling right 
American by American Citizens, which destroy the inhab- 

Citizens. itants' natural rights of property directly, and so 

destroy their natural rights of the soil in private 
land indirectly. Like the laws which destroy the 
inhabitants' rights of the soil in the public land, 
and in its place create privilege of the public 
land in officers, the laws which destroy the 
inhabitants' natural rights in private property, 
create a privilege of the private property in 
officers. 

Laws which Laws which require the owners of particular 

destroy the property to submit to the reformation of their 

natural risht , i , i re i r 

* l • - past and present contracts by an officer before 

to have private \ ^ , , , • J , . 

property. tne contracts have a right of law to enforce 

them, destroy the natural right of private prop- 
erty. Laws which deny to owners of private 
property the right to dispose of particular prop- 
erty, including land, without the permit of an 
officer, destroy the natural right. Laws which 
require the owners of certain property to give 
free of charge a part of the property to an 
officer (for instance, laws which require from 
railroads and ships the free transportation of 

51 



MY COUNTRY, 'TIS OF THEE 

the officers and his servants) ; laws which require 
reports made at the charge of the owner for the 
use of the officer; laws which provide for a 
so-called public ownership of property which 
vests possession of the property, together with 
the right to take and have the proceeds, in 
officers, destroy the natural right of property. 
Laws which deny to owners of particular prop- 
erty a right of way for their property on certain 
of the public land, destroy the natural right of 
property. 

The California Railroad Commission laws; 
most so-called public utility acts of the States; 
and the provisions of the Federal Panama Canal 
law, which deny to the owners of both railroads 
and ships the right of way for the ships through 
the Panama Canal, are laws of the kind which 
destroy inhabitants' natural rights of private 
property. 

If natural right if it be said that the particular properties, 
of one person ^ e natural rights of ownership of which are 
to nave private i , j i ,r 1 i\l- 1 • • -c 

property can destroyed by these laws, are relatively msignm- 

be destroyed cant compared with all other properties, the 
by law, natural natural rights of ownership of which are not 
right of all destroyed by laws, and that their owners are 
persons to verv few compared with the number of owners 
have private of ' other propert { es t h e answer is, that if a 

property can r 1 • r ^ • r • t.^ t. 

be so destroyed, wrongful exercise of their ruling rights by 
American Citizens can destroy the natural rights 
of private property for a single inhabitant in a 
single property, then a further wrongful exer- 
cise of their ruling rights can be made to destroy 
the natural rights of all the inhabitants in all 
their properties, and so vest its possession and 

52 



RIGHT OF PRIVATE PROPERTY 



Abolition of 
private 
property 
wanted by 
Socialists. 



the right to take and have the proceeds in officers. 
Private property would so become abolished or 
destroyed completely as a natural right. 

This is what the socialists among the inhab- 
itants want — the abolition of private property — 
the ownership of all private property now ex- 
istent by the institution of a government they 
would erect in place of the institution which now 
exists — and the possession of everything which 
had been the property of inhabitants, or which 
would be such property otherwise, vested in 
officers who would have the power to force just 
enough proceeds from the property by the com- 
pulsory labor of the inhabitants to provide them 
with food, drink, air, clothing, shelter and recrea- 
tion, which last mentioned would seem to be 
the socialistic substitute for the pursuit of happi- 
ness. 

Property ceases The term property, even with the prefix public, 
when Govern doeS not ex P ress with exactness the nature of the 
ZieZ has e the title \° a11 the land > buildings and chattels, in 
title and tne Government, together with the possession 

officers the of all of them vested in officers. There has 
possession. been no precise term invented for its description. 
With title to all the land in the Government, all 
of the land would be public land, where only 
part of the land is now public land. Public land 
is not property, though the possessory right of a 
private person to the use of it is property. That 
is plain. But the possession of all of the land, 
together with the structures and movables on 
it, vested in officers, has never existed, and so 
has never been named. If analogy in the Amer- 
ican People's institution of Government be fol- 
lowed, the land, structures and movables on it 

53 



MY COUNTRY, 'TIS OF THEE 



Deprivation of 
inhabitants of 
private 

property rights 
by laws makes 
question 
A merican 
Citizens must 
answer. 



cease being- property and become part of the 
physical means of Government, the same as land 
now held as to title by the Government, and as 
to possession by officers, and used for forts, 
arsenals and all other purposes incident to the 
maintenance of the dominion of the American 
People. 

The large number of laws already in force 
which take rights of property and of the soil 
from inhabitants owning certain properties, to- 
gether with the persistent suggestions of officers 
to the Citizens that they make more and still 
more laws of the same kind, has made a question 
vital to the future existence of the American 
People, which American Citizens must answer 
by exercise of their ruling rights decisively one 
way or the other. 

The question is: Shall American Citizens 
restore to the inhabitants of their dominion, 
including themselves, the property rights and 
rights of the soil in certain of their properties, 
which they have been deprived of by officers, by 
repealing the laws which give the officers the 
possession of the rights; or, shall American 
Citizens continue to deprive of such property 
rights and rights of the soil those inhabitants 
who have already been so deprived, and by 
making more and more laws of the same kind 
deprive more and more inhabitants of property 
rights in more and still more property and soil? 

If American Citizens answer this question by 
repealing every law which destroys property 
rights and rights of the soil of any inhabitant 
in any property owned by him, they will thereby 

54 



RIGHT OF PRIVATE PROPERTY 

re-establish the institution of American dominion 
on the doctrine of natural rights to have private 
property and natural rights of the soil as the 
institution was established originally. 

If American Citizens answer this question by 
retaining the laws which deprive some inhab- 
itants, including some of themselves, of natural 
rights of property and of the soil, and by making 
more laws of the same kind to deprive more 
inhabitants of natural rights of more property, 
they will ultimately abolish property and rights 
of ^ the soil in the inhabitants and destroy the 
original institution of dominion of the American 
People, erecting in its place by Revolution with- 
out war a socialistic institution of dominion. 



55 



Chapter VI. 

THE NATURAL RIGHT TO HAVE LIBERTY. 

Definition of The Liberty, which is the natural right of all 

natural right ^h t inhabitants in the dominion of the American 
to Liberty. p e0 ple, is the right of each inhabitant to have 
freedom for his person from involuntary servi- 
tude to another person, together with freedom for 
his person and property from arbitrary interfer- 
ence with them by an officer. It is the natural 
right of each inhabitant to have freedom of his 
person from arbitrary search, arrest, or imprison- 
ment by an officer, together with the right of each 
to have freedom for his property from arbitrary 
search and seizure by an officer. It is the natural 
right to have the natural rights of the inhab- 
itants superior to an arbitrary power exercised 
by an officer, and the right of all the inhabitants 
to have the Civil power of their Government 
exercised through impersonal law, superior to 
the military power of their Government exer- 
cised by officers. 

Natural right Unlike the natural right to Life, unlike the 

to have Liberty na t U ral rights to have all the things which 

h ? lt ral H ht su PP ort Life and make it: supportable, and unlike 

to Life. ^ ie natural rights of the soil, all of which have 

no limitations, the natural right to Liberty has 

a limitation. It is limited by the natural right 

to have Life. Wherever the exercise of one's 

56 



NATURAL RIGHT TO LIBERTY 



Natural right 
to be free of 
involuntary 
servitude is 
limited for 
persons who 
are sailors. 



natural right to Liberty would deprive another 
person of his unlimited natural right to Life, 
there the natural right to Liberty is limited. 

For instance, the natural right of a person to 
be free from involuntary servitude to another 
person is limited for persons who are sailors. 
A sailor is bound in servitude to the shipmaster 
during the period of the ship's voyage, and can- 
not exercise his right to Liberty by quitting his 
servitude to the shipmaster when it ceases in his 
mind for any reason to be his voluntary servi- 
tude. Lie must, in such condition of mind, be 
bound to involuntary servitude for the rest of 
the period of the' ship's voyage. The reason is 
plain. The quitting of the sailors would let the 
perils of the sea destroy the ship, and the lives of 
the persons on her, because at sea the shipmaster 
could not obtain other sailors to take the places 
of those who quit. By the sailors quitting, he is 
rendered helpless to bring the ship into port and 
save the lives of those on her. 

Laws compell- Laws which may compel sailors to involuntary 
mg involuntary serv i ce i the shipmaster while his ship is at sea, 
by making mutiny a capital crime, which may 
be punishable with death, do not destroy the 
natural right of the sailors to have freedom from 
involuntary servitude, but only limit the right 
so that its exercise shall not destroy the right to 
Life of other persons. Such laws are made in 
the rightful exercise of their ruling right by 
American Citizens. 

Natural right The natural right to be free from involuntary 
to be free of servitude to another person is limited for per- 
mvoluntary gons in certain servitudes to masters on land, 

57 



servitude of 
sailors at sea 
are right laws. 



MY COUNTRY, 'TIS OF THEE 



service is 
limited for 
railroad 
trainmen. 



the same as it is limited to sailors in servitude 
to shipmasters at sea. Trainmen, and all other 
operative employees of railroads, are persons 
whose right to be free from involuntary servitude 
is limited. 

They cannot, under all circumstances which 
they may create, exercise the right to Liberty 
by quitting their servitude to the owner-masters 
of the railroads when this servitude, for any 
reason in their minds, ceases to be voluntary, 
and if continued would have to be involuntary. 
They must accept the state of involuntary servi- 
tude then until the owner-masters of the rail- 
roads have obtained new employees to take their 
places. The reason is plain. 

Suppose that all the trainmen employees of all 
the railroads in the dominion of the American 
People had quit their service at 10:00 o'clock 
in the morning of September 4, 1916, as they 
had declared they would quit unless by that hour 
the owner-masters of the railroads had granted 
their demand that fewer hours should be reck- 
oned a full day's work without reduction of the 
day wages then paid them. 

It is plain that the railroads would have had 
to stop operating, because the owner-masters 
would have been unable to obtain new employees 
to take the places of the 400,000 employees who 
would have quit. The stopping of operation of 
the railroads would have stopped the food and 
fuel supply of the inhabitants of the cities, and 
so would have destroyed their right to Life, since 
deprived of food and fuel the inhabitants would 
be made helpless to support life and have it 
supportable. 

58 



NATURAL RIGHT TO LIBERTY 



Situation on 
land when all 
railroad 
trainmen quit 
service together 
same as on ship 
at sea when 
sailors all quit 
service 
together. 



Laws compell- 
ing involuntary- 
service of 
railroad 
trainmen 
would not 
destroy natural 
right to 
Liberty. 



Laws compell- 
ing involuntary 
service of 
public service 
servants would 
not destroy 
natural right 
to Liberty. 



The situation of the inhabitants of the cities 
when all the railroad trainmen would have quit 
their service together, would be the same as the 
situation of the passengers on a ship at sea when 
the sailors would have quit service together. 
Unless the quitting railroad trainmen could be 
compelled to accept a condition of involuntary 
servitude until new employees were obtained by 
the railroad owner-masters to take the place of 
those quitting, the death of inhabitants of cities 
would be consequent, the same as the death of 
passengers on a ship would be consequent if the 
sailors could not be compelled to accept a condi- 
tion of involuntary servitude until the ship came 
to port. 

Laws which would compel railroad employees 
whenever they would quit voluntary servitude, 
to yield involuntary service until the master- 
owners would have obtained other trainmen to 
take their places, by making refusal of such 
involuntary service a capital crime, the same as 
made for sailors on ships at sea, would not 
destroy the natural right of the railroad train- 
men to have freedom from involuntary servitude, 
but would limit that right so that it would not 
in its exercise destroy the natural right of other 
persons to Life. 

The making of such laws would be a rightful 
exercise of their ruling right by American 
Citizens, and they may rightfully, besides rail- 
road trainmen, make the employees in public 
and public utility water works, gas works, and 
electric light and power works, subject to their 
provisions and penalties. Employees of any of 
these put the lives of the inhabitants in danger 

59 



MY COUNTRY, 'TIS OF THEE 



In strikes by 
public service 
employees 
thing to be 
considered is 
effect of the 
strike on other 
persons. 



Necessity for 
limitation on 
Liberty in 
certain cases 
is of recent 
origin. 



by quitting their service together before the 
officer, if the works are public, or the owner- 
master, if the works are public utility, can obtain 
other persons to take their places as employees. 

The reasons which these public and public 
itility employees may have for quitting together, 
Dr striking, as the quitting in that fashion is 
:alled, or the mbre or less of benefits which they 
lope to gain from the officer or owner-master 
.hrough stopping the operation of the railroads, 
or public, or public utility works, are entirely 
outside of consideration in connection with the 
laws which are made for the purpose of keeping 
the railroads and works operating uninter- 
ruptedly. The only thing which is in considera- 
tion is the consequent efTect of the quitting or 
striking in the particular case on the right to 
Life of other persons. If that consequent efTect 
of the quitting or striking is a destruction of the 
natural right of other persons to Life, the law 
and its penalties apply, otherwise they do not 
apply. 

The present (1919) necessity for the declara- 
tion in law of the limitation of the natural right 
to Liberty from involuntary servitude in the 
cases of servants of public service, and public 
utility service, works, has arisen in comparatively 
recent vears. 



Origin and p or instance, it is only a very few years since 

development of the { nna bitants of cities and towns carried water 
public service ■, 1 r 1 . , , 

in buckets from near-by springs and streams to 

their houses. They do this in Russia yet. A 

little later, men who called themselves watermen 

or water-carriers, either with buckets in hand 

60 



of water to 
inhabitants 
of cities. 



NATURAL RIGHT TO LIBERTY 

or with barrels on wheels, carried water from the 
same springs and streams to the houses of such 
of the inhabitants as paid them for the service. 

As cities and towns expanded over larger 
areas and increased in population, the water of 
the . near-by springs and streams became both 
inadequate and unusable. It became necessary, 
in order to get good water and sufficient water, 
to go to streams or lakes so far away that neither 
the inhabitants with their buckets, nor the water- 
carriers with their carts, could go to them for 
water. 

What the inhabitants, each for himself, and 
the water-carriers for them all, could not do to 
get this distant water, one person, or several in 
association, undertook, using improved means. 
Dams, reservoirs, aqueducts, pumps, filters and 
pipe lines were built from the distant source of 
the water into the houses of the inhabitants, 
supplying them with more, and better, and 
cheaper water than before. The inhabitants 
paid the owner of the works for his service, 
together with a profit for the use of his invest- 
ment in the works. The cities and towns so 
provided with water at their houses spread over 
greater areas and increased in population faster 
than ever before. 

The inhabitants, who had at first provided 
themselves with water, now depended entirely 
on the service of one or several persons who had 
voluntarily undertaken to supply the water, and 
on the works, the means by which it was sup- 
plied. If the owner of the works should neglect 
or refuse to perform the service by stopping the 

61 



MY COUNTRY, 'TIS OF THEE 



Property used 
in supply of 
water, the 
owner-master 
of it, and his 
operative 
servants, all 
equally bound 
to inhabitants 
in servitude to 
deliver the 
water to them. 



water directly, or by taking away the works, 
the inhabitants of the city or town would have 
their lives put in danger of destruction for want 
of the water which was their drink, and their 
houses and contents put in increased danger 
from destruction by fire because of the want of 
the water with which to extinguish fires. 

Because of these dangers, the property used 
in supplying the water has ceased to be the 
owner's private property. The inhabitants of 
the city or town forthwith take what in law 
is named a servitude in it to supply the water. 
The property, though the ownership is private, is 
in law described as dedicated to a public use or 
service from which it cannot be diverted by the 
owner. The works, together with their service, 
become a public utility. 

Also, because of the danger to the inhabitants 
should the water be stopped, the owner of the 
property is bound in servitude to the inhabitants, 
or, as it is usually described, to the public, to 
give the service by supplying the water uninter- 
ruptedly. This servitude becomes involuntary 
whenever his mind makes it so, but he cannot 
quit the service because it has become invol- 
untary. Both by natural right of the inhabitants 
to have the water which is their drink, and by 
law made to secure the right, he can be forced 
to give the service and supply the water, despite 
his will not to. 

Laws compell- g u ^- the actual personal service to supply the 
slir^d UH f ary water is in nearly all cases given by employees, 
water supply servants for wages, of the owner of the works. 
service " When the employees together quit the supplying 
employees. of the water, because to continue it would be 

62 



NATURAL RIGHT TO LIBERTY 



Punishment 
which fits 
the crime. 



against their will, and therefore an involuntary 
servitude, it is precisely the same to the inhab- 
itants as though the owner had quit. By the 
natural right of the inhabitants to have the 
water which is their drink, they can rightfully 
force the employees to give the service against 
their will, the same as they can force the owner 
to give the service against his will. 

Laws, then, which would make it a capital 
crime for employees of a public utility water 
supply service to quit together, that is to say 
strike, before the owner can supply their places 
with other employees, simply hold the employees 
in the same relation to the law as the owner of 
the works. Such laws bind the employees in 
servitude to give the service to the public to the 
same extent that the owner is bound in servitude 
to give the service to the public. The inhab- 
itants, or the public, do not consider the employee 
or servant apart from the master and owner, or 
apart from the works which conduct the water 
to them. 

In illustration of the right and force of such 
laws, it happened in San Francisco that the 
President of a water company once gave notice 
that he would shut off the water from the city 
at a certain hour. He was immediately called 
on by an officer of the City, who told him that 
if the water was shut off he would hang him 
[the water company President] to the nearest 
lamp-post, and turn on the water. The water 
was not shut off. It was right law, and had 
force. It is the kind of law which fits water 
company employees, who, through striking and 
quitting their service, shut down the water 

63 



MY COUNTRY, 'TIS OF THEE 



Recent 
evolution of 
Public utility 
service from 
self service. 



The natural 
right to have 
freedom of 
person and 
effects from 
arbitrary acts 
by officers. 



pumps and so shut off the water, the same as 
it fits the water company President when his 
order shuts off the water. 

It is because of the recent evolution, of public 
utility service from individual self-service, that 
the inhabitants have failed generally to see that 
the change has put limitations on the right to 
Liberty of all persons alike who give the service 
as owners or servants. In undertaking to give 
the service, they become bound in a servitude to 
the public which gives the public the right to 
hold them in involuntary servitude, if necessary, 
in order to get it. 

American Citizens, in the beginning of their 
dominion, valued very highly the natural right 
to have freedom for themselves from arbitrary 
search, arrest, and imprisonment by officers, and 
to have freedom for their property from their 
arbitrary search and seizure. They had suffered 
very much from such arbitrary acts done by the 
King's officers while they were his subjects. 
They did not propose to have their own officers 
treat them the same way. While they regarded 
their rights to this freedom as natural rights 
which they possessed and could hold without 
their declaration in written law, they were at 
pains to declare their freedom in these respects 
in Bills of Rights which they wrote into their 
State Constitutions, and again in the Constitu- 
tion of the Union of their States. 

The right of the People to be secure in their 
persons, houses, papers, and effects, against un- 
reasonable searches and seizures, shall not be 
violated, and no warrant shall issue but upon 

64 



NATURAL RIGHT TO LIBERTY 



Natural right 
to freedom 
from search 
and arrest in 
first century. 



Since 1906 
arbitrary- 
search and 
arrest by civil 
officers very 
common. 



Officers cover 
arbitrary acts 
by different 
officers making 
and applying 
opposite 
constructions 
of same law. 



probable cause, supported by oath or affirma- 
tion, and particularly describing the place to be 
searched, and the persons or things to be 
seized. 

For the first century and a quarter of domin- 
ion of the American People, the fear of the 
firmness of the People in maintaining their 
freedom from arbitrary acts of search, arrest 
and seizure, was sufficient to restrain civil officers 
from such acts, and in very few instances, the 
period of the Civil War excepted, did military 
officers destroy the freedom of inhabitants in this 
respect. 

Beginning about 1906, arbitrary searches, 
arrests, and seizures of persons and property by 
civil officers, have at times been an everv-day 
occurrence in the less thickly populated districts 
of the Rocky Mountain and Pacific Coast States, 
and everywhere in Alaska. In these districts 
of the States, and in Alaska, the natural right 
of the inhabitants to have freedom for them- 
selves and properties from the arbitrary searches 
and seizures by officers has been destroyed. In 
the more thickly populated districts of the States 
instances of arbitrary searches and seizures, par- 
ticularly of property, while not of every-day 
occurrence, have become so common that they 
no longer attract public notice. 

Civil officers cover their arbitrary acts of 
search and seizure with what they call their 
right of administrative construction of laws in 
their enforcement of them, under different and 
opposite constructions of the same laws by the 
officers of two or more Departments of Govern- 
ment charged jointly with its administration, 

65 



MY COUNTRY, 'TIS OF THEE 



Officers 
procure 
change of law 
to cover their 
arbitrary 
seizures when 
Courts rule 
against them. 



and under laws which they either make them- 
selves under the alias of administrative regula- 
tions, or under laws the making of which they 
procure from the Citizens by false suggestion 
of their purpose. 

The covering of arbitrary searches and seiz- 
ures by means of different constructions of the 
same law made by the officers of different De- 
parments of Government, makes the inhabitant 
who happens to be the victim helpless against 
the officers. Frequently the officer of one De- 
partment takes the victim's money under his 
construction of the law, and the officer of another 
Department, construing the law oppositely, re- 
fuses to give the victim whatever the law says 
he should receive for his money, or to return 
him the money. 

Another way of effecting this covering is illus- 
trated in an incident of recent occurrence: A 
Federal law said that Chinese emigrants must 
procure in China from an American Consul, an 
officer of the State Department, his certificate 
that the Chinese was entitled to enter the United 
States as an immigrant under provisions of the 
Chinese Exclusion Act, which admitted certain 
classes of Chinese and excluded other classes, 
and provided that if a Chinaman came to an 
American port of entry with such a certificate, 
and was refused admission, then the United 
States would pay the return ship passage money. 

Under this Act American Consuls in China 
issued certificates to many Chinese who, on 
arriving at a port of entry into the United States, 
were refused landing by officers of the Treasury 

66 



NATURAL RIGHT TO LIBERTY 



Federal Trade 
Commission 
Act can be 
used to cover 



Department, who made a construction of the 
law contrarywise to that of the State Depart- 
ment officers, requiring, instead, that the ship 
owner pay the expense of the return ship 
passage. 

A ship-owning company appealed to the Courts 
against this departmental conflict of construction 
of the law, and, after several years of litigation, 
obtained from the Supreme Court the construc- 
tion of the law that the United States should pay 
the cost of the return passage, as the law said 
they should. The judgment of the Court was 
immediately made fruitless to the ship-owning 
company through the officers of the Treasury 
Department, which lost in the litigation, procur- 
ing, by their suggestion to Congress, the change 
of the law by a provision added to the act mak- 
ing the annual appropriation for the Treasury 
Department, so as to make the ship owner pay 
the cost of the return passage. 

By means, first, of contrary administrative 
constructions of the law, and then by procuring 
a law for the purpose, civil officers seized prop- 
erty of the ship-owning company, a few dollars 
at a time, but aggregating a very large sum, in 
compelling the owners of the ships to pay return 
passage of lawfully certificated Chinese refused 
landing at an American port, when the original 
law, and the intention of the American People in 
making it, said that the United States should 
pay the return passage. 

The Federal Trade Commission Act, com- 
monly described as the Clayton Act, is a law 
under which officers can, and do, cover them- 
selves in making arbitrary searches and seizures 

67 



MY COUNTRY, 'TIS OF THEE 



arbitrary 
searches and 
seizures by 
officers. 

American 
People orig- 
inally jealous 
of arbitrary 
power of 
officers and 
effective in 
preventing it. 



of persons and property, which was procured 
from the Congress through the false suggestion 
of officers to the Citizens that its purpose was to 
prevent unfair conduct of trade by corporations. 

American Citizens, in the beginning of their 
dominion, were very jealous of their natural 
right to have the natural rights of the inhab- 
itants superior to an arbitrary power exercised 
by an officer. From their experience in this 
respect, when they were subjects of the King of 
Great Britain, they so feared the arbitrary 
power of the military officers that they under- 
took to do without either army or navy in 
periods of peace, and made comparatively few 
civil officers. They were quick, individually, to 
resist and subdue civil officers whenever they 
undertook to exercise arbitrary power in a man- 
ner destructive of their natural rights. They 
were quick to unite to sustain the individual in 
his resistance of the officer, and effective in 
taking away from an officer his office. In con- 
sequence, civil officers seldom undertook to make 
arbitrary power exercised by themselves superior 
to the natural rights of the inhabitants, and 
failed when they did undertake it. 



The fear of the arbitrary power which mili- 
tary officers might exercise has continued, and 



Fear of arbi- 
trary power 
which military 

officers might now ' as in tne beginning of their dominion, is 
exercise. keeping the American People from establishing 

any real army in periods of peace, and, until the 
first quarter of the second century of their do- 
minion, without establishing any real navy in 
periods of peace. 

But Citizens, resistant as in the beginning of 
their dominion to arbitrary power exercised by 

68 



NATURAL RIGHT TO LIBERTY 

military officers, have ceased to be resistant to 
arbitrary power when exercised by civil officers. 
They have very largely increased the number of 
civil officers proportionally to their own num- 
ber the increase beginning since 1900. They do 
not now unite to sustain an individual in resist- 
ance to an officer who undertakes to make his 
arbitrary power superior to a natural right of 
an inhabitant. 
Citizens now Instead of so uniting against the officer, 

regard contests ^ ^ QQ ^ Qn ^ unequa l contest with much 
between officers . < " 1,1 . <• i • . ' . 

and an inhab- ™ same detachment of personal interest as 

itant as a sort Roman Citizens looked on contests in their 

of modern Coliseum. Like them, when the officer, the 

gladiatorial American public • gladiator, has the inhabitant 

contest. down, and looks to the Citizens for their sign 

to stick him or let him go, they turn their thumbs 

down on the luckless inhabitant while he is 

being stripped of his possessions by the officer, 

and then reward the officer with more office and 

more public money. The inhabitant, however, 

no longer is willing to resist arbitrary power 

exercised by an officer, because he knows his 

resistance is certain to be futile, since, if he 

beats one officer, another officer, with more arbi- 

tary power, takes his place, and continues the 

attack till the inhabitant's resistance is overcome. 

Natural right The natural right of all the inhabitants of the 

to have civil dominion of the American People to have the 

power superior . ., , . . ~, / , ,, • 

to Military cml P ower of their Government superior to the 

power. military power has not yet been destroyed for 

the inhabitants of the States or of Hawaii, Porto 

Rico and the Philippine Islands. The inhabitants 

of the Islands of Guam and Samoa, most of them 

subjects, have been deprived of this right. They 

are ruled by American naval officers. 

69 



Chapter VII. 



Natural right 
to pursuit of 
Happiness 
defined. 



THE NATURAL RIGHT TO THE PURSUIT 
OF HAPPINESS. 

Happiness may be denned as a self-pleasing 
state of mind surrounded by words. The nat- 
ural right of all the inhabitants of the dominion 
of the American People to the pursuit of happi- 
ness is the natural right of each of them to have 
freedom to pursue, go after, and attain or obtain, 
any desired self-pleasing state of mind, and to 
surround it with any kind or quantity of self- 
pleasing words. 

Just as the natural right to have Liberty is 
the right to have freedom of the body, so the 
natural right to the pursuit of happiness is, 
broadly, the right to have freedom of the mind, 
and since the states of mind which are happiness, 
are created of the spirit and of the conscience, 
it is the right to have freedom of the spirit and 
of the conscience. 

The natural right to the pursuit of happiness 
is the right of every inhabitant to have freedom 
of religion, together with freedom for its exer- 
cise. It is the right of every inhabitant to have 
freedom of thought, of speech, of writing, and of 
printing or of the press. It is the right of all 
the inhabitants to have freedom of peaceable 
assembly. It is the right of all the inhabitants 
to have freedom of petition to Legislatures of 

70 



PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS 



the Citizens, and to have freedom of protest and 
memorial to officers. It is the right of all the 
inhabitants to have freedom of voluntary asso- 
ciation and social organization among them- 
selves. 

More kinds of The states of mind, which are severally called 
happiness than Happiness, are by nature many more than the 

inhabitants. , , ,, . . . - . . . . . , < 

number of the inhabitants, since not only does 

every person have one or more individual states 

of mind which he holds to be his own individual 

Happiness, but there are, besides, these many 

states of mind, religious and others, which are 

common to large numbers of persons, and so 

may be described as communal or community 

Happiness. 



Natural right 
to pursuit of 
Happiness 
limited by 
natural rights 
to Life and 
Liberty. 



The natural right to the pursuit of Happiness 
is limited by the superior natural rights to Life 
and Liberty. The right to the pursuit of Happi- 
ness must always be so exercised that it does 
not destroy the right of another, or even of one's, 
self, to have Life. 

The self-brought death described as suicide 
is often sought in the pursuit of Happiness, but 
it is a wrongful exercise of this natural right, 
and so may be rightfully restrained by law. The 
self-mutilation of the body by so-called knife 
and fire rests, made in the pursuit of Happiness, 
is a wrongful exercise of the natural right, and 
so is rightfully restrained by law. 

The so-called rite of blood atonement by 
human sacrifice, the killing of a person, in the 
pursuit of Happiness, usually a communal or 
community Happiness; for instance, the burning 
to death at a stake of an old woman charged 

71 



MY COUNTRY 



TIS OF THEE 



with witchcraft, whatever occult thing that is, 
once permitted by law in some of the American 
colonies before the Revolution; is, by reason of 
the limitation, a wrongful exercise of the natural 
right to the pursuit of Happiness, and so right- 
fully restrained by law where it is not restrained 
by common consent and common sense. 

Natural right The natural right to the pursuit of Happiness 
to pursuit of mus t always be so exercised that it does not 
nofto^destroy destroy the natural right of other inhabitants 
natural rights to have all the things which support Life and 
to things which make it supportable. For instance, one may not 
support Life, destroy the natural right of his children, and 
other natural heirs to his property after his 
decease, by giving all his property by will to 
continue his pursuit of Happiness after death. 
So laws rightfully limit devises to religious, edu- 
cational, charitable, and other communal or 
community institutions of, or for, the pursuit 
of Happiness, and to their personal representa- 
tives. 

Also, inhabitants in the pursuit of a particular 
communal or community Happiness may not 
exercise their right by means, either positive, as 
by force, or negative, as by boycott, which de- 
prive any other inhabitant of food, water which 
is drink and water which is not drink, clothing 
or shelter. So laws rightfully prohibit force and 
boycotts as means for the exercise of the right 
to the pursuit of Happiness. 

Natural right The natural right to the pursuit of Happiness 

to pursuit of must always be so exercised by one or several 

Happiness inhabitants that it does not destroy the natural 

not to destroy right of other inhabitants to Liberty or freedom 

72 



PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS 



natural right 
of others to 
Liberty. 



Pursuit of 
communal 
Happiness in 
Colonies used 
to deprive 
persons of 
Liberty. 



Natural and 
rightful 
pursuits of 
Happiness. 



of the body. One in pursuit of his own Happi- 
ness, or several in the pursuit of a communal or 
community Happiness, may not imprison, or 
procure the imprisonment of, other inhabitants. 
Several in the pursuit of a particular communal 
or community Happiness, may not deprive other 
inhabitants of their natural right to labor for 
wages free from involuntary servitude to those 
who are in pursuit of the communal or com- 
munity Happiness. 

Both such imprisonment and deprivations were 
of common occurrence in several of the Ameri- 
can Colonies before the Revolution. Kentucky 
was largely settled by inhabitants of Virginia, 
fleeing thence to secure Liberty from imprison- 
ments and deprivations by other inhabitants of 
Virginia, who were engaged in the pursuit of a 
communal or community Happiness through a 
particular religious association in which the flee- 
ing ones refused to pursue Happiness with them. 

The pursuit of Happiness by an individual 
seeking it wholly within his own state of mind: 
as for instance, in the pursuit of Happiness 
through marriage and divorce, and the pursuit 
of communal or community Happiness by several 
individuals together, but wholly within the sev- 
eral minds as if the several were a single mind; 
for instance, the pursuit of communal or com- 
munity Happiness through self-sought associa- 
tion in orders and societies having wholly objec- 
tive, self-seeking or self-beneficial objects, and 
societies which may accept but do not proselyte 
for associates; are wholly natural pursuits of 
Happiness, so directed by the natural law that 

73 



MY COUNTRY 



TIS OF THEE 



Pursuits of 
Happiness 
ivhich are 
not natural. 



Pursuit of a 
communal 
Happiness may 
be rightful 
without being 
natural. 



the natural rights of all Men are secure from 
being destroyed by these pursuits of Happiness. 

The pursuit of communal or community Hap- 
piness by several inhabitants together, subjec- 
tively, not objectively, the end sought by them 
as the communal or community Happiness being 
the fixation of their particular state of mind and 
surrounding words, in and surrounding the 
minds of all other inhabitants ; as, for instance, 
the pursuit of communal or community Happi- 
ness through association in religious and other 
societies which, by force of their several par- 
ticular conceptions of the only true communal 
or community Happiness, must each proselyte 
competitively for associates until one religious 
association or society has absorbed or destroyed 
all the others, and so secured to itself all of the 
inhabitants as associates ; is not a natural pursuit 
of Happiness. 

That is not to say, though, that such pursuits 
of a communal or community Happiness are not 
rightful pursuits of Happiness. The histories 
of many countries show instance after instance 
of communal or community Happiness obtained 
in a single religious association, which had first 
absorbed or destroyed all other religious asso- 
ciations in the country. It is to say, though, 
that laws are rightfully made which secure to all 
the inhabitants the free right of religious and 
society association in the pursuit of communal 
or community Happiness, by limiting all relig- 
ious and society associations equally, in proselyt- 
ing for associates, by prohibiting the use of 
other means than suasion of the mind by words. 

74 



PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS 



Experience of 
Colonists with 
religious 
associations. 



Why laws The necessity for such laws arises from the fact 

restraining t j iat ^ states f m { n ^ w hich are held communal 

some pursuits •. TT r . , 

of communal or comm unity Happiness are not states of mind 

Happiness which the mind reasons from within itself, but 
are necessary, are states of mind which the mind has received 
from the feelings of self-consciousness, and from 
impulses of conscience, both from outside of the 
mind and reason which dominate its self-made 
states. These communal states of mind, taken 
into it from outside of it, are therefore indepen- 
dent of reason, and not amenable to it. 

The experience of the American Colonists 
before the Revolution had been, that whenever 
in any of the Colonies any religious association 
became superior in numbers of associates to the 
other religious associations, it took advantage of 
its superior numbers to destroy the others by 
persecutions, which included in their means, 
imprisonments, bodily tortures, sometimes death, 
and deprivations of many natural and other 
rights. They found by these experiences, that 
mutual toleration between religious associations 
existed only when no one of them was so superior 
in numbers to the others, that tolerance from 
the others was not necessary for its own pro- 
tection. 

Laws which From the fears which their experience had 

secure freedom insi^ired, the Colonists, when they became Amer- 

jor pursui of • Citizens, made laws in their States secur- 
tiappiness . ' . . . . _, 

through ln g freedom of religion and of its exercise. The 

religion. first amendment to the Constitution of the United 

States had the same purpose. 

Congress shall make no law respecting an 
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the 
free exercise thereof ; or abridging the freedom 

75 



MY COUNTRY, 'TIS OF THEE 

of speech or of the press; or of the right of 
the people peaceably to assemble, and to peti- 
tion the Government for a redress of griev- 
ances. 

Necessity for The necessity for force of law to restrain 
these laws still religious societies from wrongfully exercising 
exist and likely the ruli rights of their Citizen associates to 
a necessity. make laws by which the proselyting of their 
particular society is assisted at the public charge, 
is the same at the present time as it was in the 
beginning of dominion of the American People. 
It will likely continue as long as their dominion 
exists. Laws which provide for religious in- 
struction, or even for the reading of the books 
of a particular religion, in the public schools; 
laws which provide for appropriations of public 
school funds to the schools of religious societies 
or for divisions of public school funds with the 
schools of religious societies; and laws which 
exempt property of religious societies from tax- 
ation, are frequently proposed and sometimes 
made, the real purpose of which is to assist the 
proselyting of one or another religious society 
at the public charge. Also, there is seldom a 
period in which there are not one or more 
religious societies, organized more or less 
secretly by Citizen associates of the societies, 
for the purpose of destroying other religious 
societies by means of laws proposed to be made, 
which, if made, would be wrongful. 

This is a condition which seems perpetually 
to threaten the destruction of the natural right 
of all the inhabitants to the pursuit of Happiness 
through freedom of religion, and, consequently, 
through freedom of thought, speech and the 

76 



PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS 

press. It cannot be reasoned out of existence, 
but of necessity must be perpetually opposed by 
Citizens whose states of mind are made and 
maintained by reason. 

Limitations of The natural right of the inhabitants to free- 
definitions of dom of speech, writing, and printing or the 
speech, writing presS) j s unlimited. What appear to be limita- 
pnn mg. ^ ons f ^ na t ur al right are not such, but are 
limitations of the definitions of speech, writing, 
and printing or the press. For instance, the 
public utterance of words, orally, in writing, or 
by printing in the press, with intention to injure, 
or which, without intention, do injure, another 
inhabitant, is not the public speech, writing and 
printing which are free by natural right. Neither 
is the public utterance of words, orally, in writ- 
ing, or in print, with intention to incite some of 
the inhabitants to destroy the property of other 
inhabitants, or to take their lives, or to destroy 
public works. The first mentioned exercise of 
freedom of the wrong kind of speech is rightfully 
restrained by law as being slander and libel, and 
the last mentioned is restrainable rightfully, but 
seldom is restrained until the lives of persons 
and property have been destroyed through its 
sufferance. 



Public officers 
cannot be 
injured by- 
freedom of 
speech in 
criticising 
their conduct 
as officers. 



On the other hand, since the administration of 
the Government of the American People is by 
impersonal law, no public utterance of words, 
orally, by writing, or in print in the press, can 
injure an officer as an individual, so public 
speech, writing, or printing, critically or con- 
demnatory of the law and of officers of the Gov- 
ernment, is in all respects free when made by 

77 



MY COUNTRY, 'TIS OF THEE 



Natural right 
to freedom 
of peaceable 
assembly. 



Natural right 
of freedom of 
petition and 
memorial. 



Citizens or subjects. Aliens, being mere tem- 
porary inhabitants of the dominion, without any 
right to make or unmake the Government, can 
have no natural right of the same freedom of 
speech with reference to the law and officers, 
which is enjoyed by the Citizens who make both, 
and by Citizens and subjects who may unmake 
both. 

The natural right of all the inhabitants to 
have freedom of peaceable assembly is so self- 
evident that the only questions which have ever 
arisen are over differences of opinion as to the 
right of particular places, for instance, streets 
and other public places, for the assembly. There 
is, however, the inevitable exception. The Mayor 
of Oakland, California, refused to permit a meet- 
ing of Citizens to advocate "peace," threatening 
to use the police to disperse it. The meeting 
was not held. 

The natural right of the inhabitants to have 
freedom of petition to Legislatures of the Citi- 
zens, and to have freedom of memorial and pro- 
test to officers is unlimited, and has never been 
destroyed. Its exercise, however, has been made 
so common, and so devoid of the dignity and 
seriousness of purpose with which petitions, 
memorials and protests, were made in the period 
at the beginning of dominion by the American 
People, that in the present (1900-1919) period 
the exercise has become more interesting as a 
rite of political sacrifice of the inhabitants to 
Legislatures and officers, to the latter quite as 
if they were little tin gods, than useful to them 
as a natural right. Legislatures receive 

78 



PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS 



Natural right 
to freedom 
of social 
organization 
among the 
inhabitants. 



petitions, and officers receive memorials and pro- 
tests, and then both ignore them. That has come 
to be expected by the inhabitants, but it does 
not lessen their pursuit of Happiness by the 
exercise of the right of petition, memorial and 
protest. 

The natural right of all the inhabitants to have 
freedom of voluntary association and social 
organization among themselves is unlimited. 
Equality in the possession of the natural right 
by all the inhabitants is not social equality 
between them. Equality in the possession of 
the ruling rights by all the Citizens is not social 
equality between them. Social equality is neither 
a natural right nor a ruling right. Its existence, 
when it does exist, if it ever has existence, is 
by its common acceptance through all the inhab- 
itants having the same state of mind with respect 
to it. 

Social equality is simply a state of mind, for 
which there is freedom in the pursuit of it as 
a Happiness, by natural right. So, too, social 
inequality is a state of mind less uncommon than 
the other, which is Happiness, for which there 
is freedom of the pursuit by the same natural 
right. The pursuit of Happiness by social 
inequality is always a means of voluntary asso- 
ciation and social organization. It is a com- 
munal or community Happiness, not an indi- 
vidual Happiness. 

Laws recogniz- Laws which recognize social inequality as 
ing social made by voluntary association and social organ- 

inequality are i zat i n of the inhabitants, are made in the right- 
rignt}uUymade. M exercise of their ruling rig hts by American 

79 



Social equality 
and social 
inequality are 
states of mind. 



MY COUNTRY, 'TIS OF THEE 

Citizens. For instance, laws which provide for 
separate cars or compartments on railroad trains 
for persons of the white and other races; laws 
which exclude persons of any race from hotels 
and other places of public entertainment pro- 
vided for persons of any other race; laws which 
provide for the occupancy of restricted districts 
by certain inhabitants without regard to race, 
or with regard to race, are all laws made in the 
rightful exercise of their ruling rights by Amer- 
ican Citizens. 

Though not yet maintained as rightful, it 
would seem that laws which provide for the 
occupancy of restricted districts of cities by 
inhabitants with regard to race, are rightful, 
the same as other segregation laws. Such laws 
would secure the right to the pursuit of a com- 
munal or community Happiness by recognizing 
a social difference, if not a social inequality, 
between inhabitants. 

Confusion of There is confusion in the minds of many 

thought m inhabitants concerning: the rightfulness of all 
relation to Laws-, . . P , . ,., , ,, 

recognizing laws recognizing social inequality, or, broadly 

social an d more tolerantly, social difference. It has 

inequality. arisen from the fact that many of these laws, 
intentioned solely to secure the right to the 
pursuit of Happiness by recognizing social 
inequality, or social difference, between the races 
constituting the inhabitants, have had the effect 
of destroying superior natural rights of one of 
the races. Inhabitants of the other race, the 
race dominant in number of Citizens, intent on 
its pursuit of Happiness, have not always under- 
stood that the natural rights of Life and Liberty 
which these laws, without intention, destroyed 

80 



PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS 



for the other race, are superior to and limit 
their own natural right to the pursuit of Happi- 



The commer- 
cial side of 
the pursuit of 
communal or 
community 
Happiness. 



ness. 



Commercial 
side of a 
communal or 
community 
Happiness is 
the side which 
takes money 
through the 
pursuit of it. 



The commercial side of the pursuit of com- 
munal or community Happiness has become 
developed during recent years (1900-1919), until 
it has become an active and positive force among 
the inhabitants, operating by suggestion to the 
Citizens to procure the making of laws by them, 
the provisions of which have made the com- 
mercial sides of a great many communal or 
community Happinesses public charges, where 
originally they had been private charges on 
groups of the inhabitants pursuing by themselves 
these communal or community Happinesses. 
Nor is it the public money which the commer- 
cial sides of these communal or community Hap- 
piness eat, parasite-like, the most destructive 
effect of the suggestion of the laws which enable 
them to live, eat, and multiply their numbers at 
the public expense. The most destructive effect 
is that the laws they suggest, in many instances 
deprive inhabitants of natural rights, and under 
their cover permit the property of inhabitants 
to be consumed along with the public funds. 

Every pursuit of communal or community 
Happiness has two sides: An active side, which 
is the commercial side, and a passive or receptive 
side, which is wholly uncommercial. The active 
side consists of the persons who pursue the 
communal or community Happiness, as the pro- 
moters, preachers, secretaries and other sug- 
gesters of the community or communal Happi- 
ness to the passive side. The passive side con- 
sists of the persons who, in a more or less 

81 



MY COUNTRY 



'TIS OF THEE 



Development 
of commercial 
side of 
communal or 
community 
Happiness 
into a public 
charge. 



hypnotized state of mind, induced by the sugges- 
tion of the active persons, conceive, self-con- 
templatively, that they have attained the 
communal or community beatitude or state of 
Happiness, vicariously, through the reaction or 
kick of the persons of the active side on the 
others of the inhabitants. The persons of the 
active side take money — pay — for pursuing the 
communal or community Happiness. That is 
why there is a commercial side to the pursuit 
of a communal or community Happiness. The 
passive side persons take a self-pleasing sensa- 
tion of the mind and give money for it — pay the 
commercial side, that is to say the persons of it, 
for giving them the sensation. 

In the beginning of the pursuit of a communal 
or community Happiness, the persons who con- 
stitute the passive side pay their own money for 
their sensations of Happiness. But as more and 
more persons parasitically graft themselves onto 
the commercial side, there eventually comes a 
time when the limit of their own money which 
the persons of the passive side will pay is 
reached. Then, by suggestion from the com- 
mercial side, working through the greater num- 
bers of the passive side to the Citizens, laws are 
procured from the latter under which public 
money takes the place of the private money in 
the paying. 

When the communal or community pursuit 
of a Happiness so becomes a public charge, the 
persons of the commercial side become officers 
charged with the administration of the laws. 
The pursuit of the Happiness by them then 
becomes a secondary concern to their pursuit of 

82 



PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS 



National 
Forest Service 
is example of 
commercial 
side of 
community 
Happiness 
becoming 
public charge. 



the public money. The number of the officers 
of administration, and the sums which they 
draw in salaries, wages, and expenses of admin- 
istration, from the public funds, constantly tend 
to increase, while the number of persons of the 
passive side tend to decrease since they may no 
longer measure their self-pleasing sensation of 
the pursuit of the Happiness by the sum of their 
own money which it costs. 

The National Forest Service is an example of 
the commercial side of a communal or com- 
munity pursuit of Happiness becoming a public 
charge. Originally, the pursuit of this par- 
ticular communal or community Happiness was 
limited to a self-selected group of the inhabitants, 
who obtained a self-pleasing sensation of mind 
in the suggested thought that they were saving 
the natural forests on the land from destruction 
by the growing industrial demands on them as 
raw material. Proselyting, they added to the 
number of the group, till the number of Citizens 
embraced in it became great enough, on sugges- 
tion from the persons of the commercial side, 
assisted by officers for officers' reasons, which 
are also commercial, to make laws which made 
it a public charge. It is not a small charge, 
either. 

The National Forest service costs directly over 
$7,000,000 of public money annually, and indi- 
rectly, through its interference with the natural 
rights of the inhabitants, much more annually. 
These enormous sums are the development from 
the original public charge of a $1 annual salary 

83 



MY COUNTRY, 'TIS OF THEE 

paid the first officer a quarter of a century ago, 
when it first became a public charge. Looking 
backward, the first $1 a year man seems to have 
been paid too much salary. 



84 



Chapter VIII. 

THE RULING RIGHTS OF CITIZENS. 

Definition of The ruling rights of American Citizens are 
ruling rights of tri e rights of dominion over the inhabitants on 

CittJen^ 11 the soi1 ' with which the y invested themselves 

when they seized the territories of the thirteen 
American Colonies of Great Britain, and ousted 
the King of Great Britain from dominion over 
their inhabitants. 

American In seizing; the King's territories and dominion, 

wizens American Citizens did not assume and invest 

did not assume , , , -.1,1 ■ 1 , <■ ■> • • 1 • 1 

King's rights of themselves with the rights of dominion which 

dominion in the King had held. They held that the rights 

succession of dominion, among others, which the King had 

to him. held Qver r ights of the soil and other natural 

rights of the inhabitants, were wrongful, and 

should not have been held as ruling rights. F01 

themselves they repudiated them as ruling rights 

American s there was no succession of ruling right? 

Citizens _ from the K - of Great B r i ta i n to t he self- 

made their own , A .° ^ . . . T , , , 

ruling rights, created American Citizens. Instead, the new 

American Citizens made their ruling rights as 

original and new as themselves. They did adopt 

forms of the King's Government and made them 

forms of their own Governments of their new 

States. They did adopt rules of the Common 

Law of Great Britain, and made them rules of 

their own Common Law. But they did not 

85 



MY COUNTRY, 'TIS OF THEE 

adopt the ruling rights of the King of Great 
Britain and make them their own ruling rights. 
The distinction is important and fundamental. 

Ruling rights Restoring to the inhabitants, including them- 
of American se l ves a \\ the rights of the soil and other natural 

I ltlZf*Tl^ 

made to secure r ig nts which they held were their unalienable 
natural rights original possession, incapable of being affected 
of inhabitants by rights of dominion, the ruling rights with 
and perpetuity w hich they invested themselves were, first, those 

j° t . ei r which they deemed necessary to secure to the 

dominion. .,,.-', , / . rr , 

inhabitants, between themselves, the unalrected 

peaceable possession of all their natural rights, 

and second, such other ruling rights as they 

deemed necessary to secure to themselves as 

American Citizens the perpetuity of dominion 

over their independent States. 

The essentials The natural society of inhabitants is not 

of the natural necessar ii y a society of inhabitants in a state 

society of ttts • 

inhabitants. °^ nature. It does not imply mud huts, stone 

hatchets, and fig-leaf clothing as accessories. 
The natural society of inhabitants can exist in 
possession of every material thing which the 
art and invention of civilized man has made. 
Its essentials are a common consent of the 
inhabitants in accepting and maintaining the 
natural law of possession as their law of right, 
together with a common desire for that attain- 
able state of individual Happiness, the other 
name of which is Contentment. 

The conception of the new American Citizens, 
that the natural basis of society among Men is 
their possession of unalienable natural rights, 
and that society among Men on that basis can 
be maintained against all destroying forces by 

86 



The four 
ruling rights 
of Citizens. 



RULING RIGHTS OF CITIZENS 

the self-imposed obligation of themselves to pro- 
vide the necessary restraining force, are thus 
natural and reasonable conceptions. Their taking 
of dominion with these sublime ideas of what 
men may accomplish in peace together must 
forever be honored by American Citizens. 

The four ruling rights of American Citizens 
are: 

1. To make the forms of their governments. 

2. To make the laws for the inhabitants of 
their dominion and for themselves. 

3. To elect their officers and Courts. 

4. To serve as officers to administer and 
execute the law and as Courts to decide questions 
of the law. 

The obligations Every ruling right of Citizens imposes on 
which impose them a correS ponding duty, or, as it may be said, 

titQTftSGLVGS Oft ■" ■ 

Citizens in imposes on them an obligation counterbalancing 
counterbalance it. The Citizens' duties or obligations are: 



of their 
ruling rights. 



1. To maintain the form of their Govern- 
ments, by means of their laws, against destruc- 
tion by wrongful exercise of the ruling right. 

2. To obey the laws themselves, and to 
exact obedience to them from all inhabitants not 
Citizens. 

3. To support their officers in administration 
and execution of the law, and the Courts in 
their decisions of questions of the law. 

4. To give military service to their several 
States against inhabitants who, by insurrection 
or rebellion, obstruct the execution of the law 
within their States. 



87 



Possession 
of ruling 
rights and 
imposition of 
corresponding 
obligations. 



MY COUNTRY, 'TIS OF THEE 

5. To give military service to the Union of 
their States, the United States, in all cases 
necessary; first, to secure their combined domin- 
ion against change or destruction by States or 
subjects in armed revolt; second, to secure 
American Citizens and subjects in possession 
of their rights when residing in foreign states; 
and third, to secure their several States, Terri- 
tories, dependencies and subject lands, and pro- 
tected States within their extraterritorial domin- 
ion, against invasion and conquest by the armed 
forces of foreign states. 

This last stated obligation is the counterbal- 
ancing obligation to the Citizens' right of domin- 
ion. The dominion the Citizens claim must be 
defended by their military force. 

All of the ruling rights and corresponding 
obligations of American Citizens are possessed 
equally and impose themselves equally on the 
Citizens. Subjects and aliens possess none of 
the ruling rights of Citizens except as the 
Citizens may grant them as privileges, and are 
under no imposition of the obligations except as 
they may have accepted corresponding ruling 
rights as privileges. 

The right of residence of aliens in the Ameri- 
can dominion is a privilege had by grant of the 
Citizens, and the counterbalancing obligation 
which it imposes on aliens is obedience to the 
law made by Citizens. 



88 



Chapter IX. 

RULING RIGHT OF CITIZENS TO MAKE 
FORM OF GOVERNMENTS. 



Citizens' The ruling right of the Citizens to make their 

ruling right form of governments is not a ruling right to 
canno e change the institution of natural society of the 

USGCl tO CflClttSG 

institution of inhabitants of their dominion. They made their 
natural society, form of governments with intention to secure 
to the inhabitants their institution of natural 
society. Therefore the Citizens may not right- 
fully use any of the means of the form .of govern- 
ments made to secure the institution of natural 
society, to destroy it, and to put in its place any 
institution of artificial society. 



Ruling right 
of Citizens 
to make 
Governments 
is limited 
by their 
compacts. 



Citizens in 
beginning 
made form 



The ruling right of the Citizens to make their 
form of governments was unlimited in the 
beginning of the American People. They could 
then have made any form they elected to make. 
It is not an unlimited ruling right at the present 
time (1900-1920). That is to say, that the 
present ruling right of the Citizens to change 
the form of governments which they have, is 
not unlimited. It is expressly limited by the 
terms of the compacts between themselves made 
when they elected the form of governments they 
have. 

American Citizens exercised their ruling 
right to make the form of their governments 
when, at the time of their beginning, they made 

89 



MY COUNTRY, 'TIS OF THEE 



of their 
governments 
republican 
with intention 
that it should 
be permanent 
form. 



Political 
party of 
Citizens 
since 1900 
attempting 
to destroy 
republican 
form of 
government 
and make 
socialistic 
form. 



the form of the governments of their thirteen 
independent States republican. They undertook 
to make the republican form permanent when 
they later made the Union of the States under 
the Constitution. 

The United States shall guarantee to 
every State in this Union a republican form of 
government. 

By force of this provision in the Constitution 
the thirteen original States gave up that part 
of their independence which invested their Citi- 
zens with the ruling right to change the form 
of their government. The new States, as they 
in turn became admitted on an equality with the 
older States, never had this independence. Their 
Citizens had to ask admission into the Union 
with a form of government which was repub- 
lican, and that concluded them. 

Nevertheless, since 1900, a constantly increas- 
ing number of Citizens in several of the States, 
have engaged in the attempt, by exercise of their 
ruling rights, without objection from the other 
Citizens, to substitute a socialistic form of gov- 
ernments for the republican form. This attempt 
is openly made, and with assurance as if it were 
an undefeasible ruling right. The Citizens 
engaged in it are organized into a political party 
to elect legislatures to destroy the republican 
form of government by their enactment of laws 
which accomplish it, and to elect officers to 
administer and enforce socialistic laws. At the 
present period (1919-1920) the cumulation of 
substitutions of laws made from time to time 
has made a partial change of the republican 

90 



FORM OF GOVERNMENTS 



A cabal of 

Citizens 

since 1900 

attempting 

to change 

republican 

form of 

governments 

to a new 

feudalistic 

form. 



Officers of 
governments 
constitute 
the force of 
the cabal 
making form 
of government 
feudalistic in 
place of 
republican. 



form of governments of several States, and in 
one State — North Dakota — has so far changed 
it that a comparatively few more like changes 
will make its government wholly socialistic in 
form. 

Also, since 1900, another constantly increas- 
ing number of Citizens, more or less in all the 
States, have engaged in the attempt by cabal, 
intrigue, and deception as to their real purpose, 
to destroy the republican form of governments 
and to make a new feudalistic form of govern- 
ments in its place — a form which borrows some- 
thing from the British Empire provincial form 
of government, and borrows something from 
the late Russian Imperial form of government. 
The Citizens engaged in it have not organized 
into a political party, but, making of them- 
selves a disorganizing, destroying force in all 
political parties, they have intrigued their cabal 
into a possession of the offices of governments 
from which the weakened political parties have 
found themselves unable to evict them. 

In possession of the offices of government, 
they accomplish the destruction of the repub- 
lican form of the governments by themselves 
making feudalistic laws, which they administer 
as rules and regulations under their intentional 
misconstruction of right laws, or by procuring 
through false suggestion the making of feudal- 
istic laws from legislatures. Like the socialist 
party, the feudalistic cabal is gradually destroy- 
ing the republican form of our governments by 
cumulating substitutions of laws. At the present 
time. (1919-1920) the feudalistic cabal has made 
a very great change in the republican form of 

9] 



MY COUNTRY, 'TIS OF THEE 



Industrial 
workers' 
unions, 
including 
Citizens and 
aliens, are 
attempting 
to change 
republican 
form of 
government to 
"soviet" the 
present (1919) 
Russian 
people 
government 
form. 



Obligation 
on Citizens 
to maintain 



the government of the United States, the Fed- 
eral Government, and considerable change in 
the republican forms of government of several 
States. 

Having its beginning later than the others 
(about 1905), a third attempt, continuing and 
growing in force since then, is being made to 
change the republican form of our governments. 
Citizens and aliens associated in industrial work- 
ers' unions are engaged in this attempt. They 
would call it, if successfully accomplished, an 
industrial revolution. In its essence it is an 
attempt to overturn the natural structure of 
society. It would, if successful, put brains, and 
all that brains produce at the bottom, and put 
the industrial workers, sans brains, at the top. 
This attempt to destroy the republican form of 
our governments was imported with aliens. 
Some of the aliens have become Citizens De- 
naturalization. Comparatively few native-born 
Citizens are engaged in it. It openly has alien 
leadership. Their present (1919-1920) purpose 
is to set up the new Russian, "soviet," form of 
government in place of the republican. To 
accomplish their purpose they have commenced 
a rebellion against the remainder of the Citizens 
with intention to conquer them into submission. 
The means they are employing are means em- 
ployed in war — small arms, such as guns and 
revolvers, bombs, poison, fire, blockades of 
transport lines, and the stopping of supplies of 
food, water and fuel to cities and States. 

The fact that the Citizens who are attempting 
to change the republican form of their govern- 
ments, are repudiating and dishonoring their 

92 



FORM OF GOVERNMENTS 



republican 
forms of 
governments. 



Guarantee of 
United States 
of republican 
form of 
government to 
every State. 



Remaining 
Citizens can 
maintain 
republican 
form of 
governments 



obligation to maintain that form of their gov- 
ernments, simply increases the obligation of the 
remaining Citizens to maintain it. The guar- 
antee by the United States of a republican form 
of government to every State in the Union is 
not self-executing. Also, when, as is the fact, 
the United States do not maintain their own 
republican form of government against change, 
their guarantee to the States cannot be executed 
at all. Either way it comes to the remaining 
Citizens to discharge for all of them their obli- 
gation to maintain the republican form of their 
governments. 

Just as a stream can rise no higher than its 
source, so the guarantee of the United States 
of a republican form of government to every 
State cannot guarantee any more than the 
republican form of government which the United 
States have at the time. If their republican 
form of government is in part destroyed through 
substitutions from some other form of govern- 
ment, their guarantee to every State is a guar- 
antee of a like partly destroyed republican form 
of government. This is plain. On the other 
hand, whenever the republican form of govern- 
ment of the United States is unimpaired, free 
from destroying parasitic grafts of other forms 
of government, their guarantee insures to every 
State its unimpaired republican form of gov- 
ernment. 

The -remaining Citizens by means of their 
ruling right can maintain the republican form 
of their governments against the attempt to 
destroy it and make a socialistic form of gov- 
ernment in its place The right of a Citizen 

93 



MY COUNTRY, 'TIS OF THEE 



by taking 
the right 
to vote 

from Citizens 
who would 
vote to 
destroy it. 



Legislatures 
can exclude 
members who 
would vote 
to destroy 
republican 
form of 
government. 



to use his vote in government to destroy the 
form of the government can be rightfully chal- 
lenged by the remaining Citizens, and they can 
take his right to vote away for that reason. 
A Citizen's allegiance cannot be qualified. The 
remaining Citizens can only accept the whole 
of it. A Citizen who votes to destroy the 
republican form of his governments, or who 
votes to destroy it in part, as effectually with- 
draws his allegiance from the remaining Citizens 
as he would by taking arms in rebellion against 
them. While the means would be different, the 
result would be the same. The Citizens who 
attempted by force of their arms to withdraw 
their allegiance in the Civil War (1681-1865), 
had their right to vote taken away by the 
remaining Citizens until they again gave their 
full allegiance. It is a good precedent still. 

A Citizen elected to a State legislature, or 
to Congress, who would become a member for 
the purpose of destroying the republican form 
of government by means of his law-making vote, 
may rightfully be refused a seat, and right to 
vote, by the remaining members. It would be 
plain to them that his intention of legislation 
would be in contravention, in opposition, to the 
oath of membership which he would have to 
take to become a member. By the same rule, 
the right of a Citizen to be an officer of a 
government can be challenged, if he would be 
taking the office with the intention of using its 
authority to detsroy the republican form of 
government of which he would be a part, and 
he can rightfully be kept out of the office, or 
removed from it, for that reason. 



94 



FORM OF GOVERNMENTS 



Political 
parties can 
stop the 
attempt to 
change the 
republican 
form of 
government 
to the new 
feudal form. 



The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitu- 
tion is plain on rebellion disqualifying a Citizen 
from holding any office whatever. 

No person shall be a Senator or Representa- 
tive in Congress, or Elector of President and 
Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or 
military, under the United States, or under 
any State, who, having previously taken an 
oath as a member of Congress, or as an officer 
of the United States, or as a member of any 
State Legislature, or as an executive or judicial 
officer of any State, to support the Constitution 
of the United States, shall have engaged in 
insurrection or rebellion against the same, or 
given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. 
But Congress may, by a vote of to-thirds of 
each house, remove such disability. 

Regenerated political parties are means by 
use of which at the present time (1920) the 
remaining Citizens can restore and maintain 
the republican form of their governments against 
the attempt of the cabal of Citizens to destroy 
it, and to make in its place the new feudal form 
of government. Regenerated political parties 
would take the offices of the governments away 
from the cabal which has held possession of 
them while the political parties were degenerat- 
ing. The regenerated political parties taking 
the offices would make an end of the selling 
of privilege by officers of the governments, 
and would make an end to their filching of 
natural rights from the inhabitants. Regen- 
erated political parties would make it easy for 
the Courts to see that the privileges which had 
been bought, were void, because they were made 
from filched natural rights, which they would 
restore to the inhabitants. 



95 



MY COUNTRY, 'TIS OF THEE 



Remaining 
Citizens 
should use 
means of war 
to stop rebels 
who employ 
means of war 
to accomplish 
their rebellion. 



Officers of the 
Law employing 
means of the 
Law to stop 
rebels, make 
more rebels 
than they stop. 



Better and more means of war are the only 
means effectual to stop men who are employing 
means of war in rebellion against the remaining 
Citizens. It is wholly immaterial whether the 
rebellion has for its object the splitting of the 
dominion between the rebels and the remaining 
Citizens, as in 1861-1865, or has for its object 
the changing of the form of government by the 
rebels, as in the continuing rebellion,, 1905-1920. 
The reason for the employment of means of war 
by the remaining Citizens is the same always. 
It is the only means which will stop the rebels. 
The attempt to employ means of the Law against 
rebels who are employing means of war helps 
the rebellion along by giving it time. Given 
time enough that way, the rebellion will become 
a revolution, and the once rebels, the first 
patriots of the new "soviet" state they make and 
rule. 

The futility of the attempts being made (1919- 
1920) to stop the rebels by means of the Taw 
has become self-evident. The officers of the 
Law admit that the number of the rebels in- 
creases in the face of these attempts. This is 
only astonishing to the officers. Being officers, 
they cannot comprehend that the ways they take 
in employing means of the Law are ways which 
in all times among all peoples have made more 
rebels. They arrest the preachers and pro- 
fessors — the chaplains of the rebels — kick out 
their soap boxes and other platforms from under 
their speaking, and break up with policemen's 
clubs the peaceable assemblies to hear them. 
They seize and indict their newspapers, printing 
presses, and editors. These ways always make 

96 



FORM OF GOVERNMENTS 



Employing 
means of Law 
to stop rebels 
has the 
opposite 
effect of 
assisting their 
rebellion. 



Instance of 

remaining 

Citizens 

employing 

wrong means 

against the 

rebels. 



more rebels. The officers do not know any other 
ways. The right way, employing means of war, 
would let the preachers and professors talk and 
the editors print. It would let the speaking 
platforms stand and the printing presses run. 
In the ways of war, the preachers and pro- 
fessors, camp followers of rebellion for the loot, 
would be considered as live bait, and the speak- 
ing platforms and printing presses as traps, to 
collect and identify the rebels. In the ways of 
war those who were present at the meetings, and, 
trailing the carriers, those who received the 
newspapers, would be rebels worth the taking 
as prisoners of war. 

The employment by the remaining Citizens 
of means of war to subdue the rebels sets a 
time limit to the period of their rebellion — the 
more and better means of war so employed the 
briefer the time limit. That, rebels know. 
They do not want a time limit set for the period 
of their rebellion. To avoid it, the rebels always 
employ means of the law against the remaining 
Citizens. That way they extend the time limit 
of their rebellion. The marvel which stupefies 
intelligence is that the Law they rebel to destroy, 
listens and extends their time. Their means of 
Law, the remaining Citizens should understand, 
deal retail with rebels, while their means of war 
deal wholesale with rebels. Rebels must be 
dealt with wholesale — retail is too slow. 

Those of the remaining Citizens of Kansas 
who, volunteering, dug coal for the State's 
inhabitants when the coal miners, in rebellion, 
omitted to dig it, took the wrong means — the 
means of the Law. The omission of the rebels 

97 



MY COUNTRY, 'TIS OF THEE 



to dig coal was a means of war. It was the 
same in effect as would have been the effect of 
the rebels' act of seizure of all the coal from 
the inhabitants' homes. The remaining Citizens 
would have fought the act of seizure of the 
coal from their homes with arms — means of war. 
They should, for the same reason, have fought 
the omission to dig the coal with arms — means 
of war. Instead of volunteering to dig coal 
from the mines, these remaining Citizens should 
have volunteered to get coal from the miners. 
Then proceeding to the mines with superior force 
and arms they should have made prisoners of 
war of the rebels, and as prisoners of war made 
them dig coal under guard until the whole of 
the rebellion in all the States was similarly 
subdued and ended. 

Instance of The Colonel of Kansas took the wrong means, 

military officer ^e means of the Law, when three railroad 
switchmen, rebels together with the coal miners, 
refused to switch his train of soldiers and 
volunteer coal diggers en route to the coal mines. 
The omission, by refusal, of the switchmen to 
switch the train was the same in effect as would 
have been their act of blocking the track against 
the train. The omission was the employing of 
a means of war the same as the act of blockading 
would have been the employing of a means of 
war. The Colonel, himself a man of war, should 
have taken means of war against these three 
rebels — detailed a sergeant and file of soldiers 
to capture them, and as prisoners of war under 
guard make them switch his train. Once made 
prisoners of war, the Colonel should not have 

98 



wrong means 
against the 
rebels. 



FORM OF GOVERNMENTS 



Instance 
of State 
Governors 
taking the 
wrong means 
against the 
rebels. 



Instance of 
Professor- 
Colonel 
advising 
The Legion 
wrongly as 
to means it 
should take 
to subdue 
the rebels. 



paroled them, but taken them along with his 
train to switch it when necessary, and when not 
switching to dig coal. 

The State Governors took the wrong means — 
means of publicity — when they seized the coal 
mines in their States from which the coal miners 
— rebels — omitted to dig coal. The Governors 
should have taken means of war and seized the 
coal miners instead of the mines. The mines 
could not get away, and the coal miners could. 
Seizing the coal mines was gloriously futile — 
but surely safe. Seizing the coal miners would 
have been practically effective — but might be 
unsafe — for the Governors. The Governors of 
States in the present continuing period of rebel- 
lion have not all of them the stiffness of the 
Governors of the remaining States during the 
first rebellion, 1861-1865. 

In November, 1919, at Centralia, State of 
Washington, four soldiers of The Legion — Our 
Legion — were killed, and many more of them 
wounded, by gun fire of rebels in a surprise 
attack upon The Legion. The action was ap- 
parently a try-o.ut affair by the rebels to find 
out how strong The Legion would fight them. 
Its historic parallel is the attack of the rebels 
in 1861 on Fort Sumter. 

The Professor-Colonel, or Colonel-Professor, 
of California, speaking to The Legion on the 
battle death of their four, said that The Legion 
ought not to fight fire with fire, by which he 
meant that The Legion should not use its means 
of war against the rebels to subdue their 
rebellion, but that it should take means of the 
Law against the persons who fired the guns that 

99 



MY COUNTRY, 'TIS OF THEE 



The Legion 
and the 
rebellion to 
change the 
form of our 
governments. 



Distinction 

between 

rebellion 

against 

particular 

laws, and 

rebellion 

against 

the Law. 



shot the shots that killed the four of The Legion. 
The Professor was wholly wrong with his 
counsel. The Colonel should rightly have or- 
dered The Legion to use its means of war to 
the limit, and without limit in case The Legion 
wanted it that way. 

The Legion is the war means of the remaining 
Citizens ready made at hand to stop the rebel- 
lion. The common agreement of the remaining 
Citizens that the rebels shall not be permitted 
to employ means of the Law to stop The Legion, 
will make The Legion effective. The reason for 
this common consent of the remaining Citizens 
may not be questioned by the rebels. 

There is a distinction between a rebellion of 
Citizens against the enforcement of particular 
laws, and a rebellion, such as the present ( 1905- 
1919) rebellion against the Law. The Citizens 
who engage in the first do not lose any right 
of the Law by their rebellion. Those who 
engage in the second put themselves altogether 
outside of the Law when they begin to employ 
means of war. In essence the rebels, by employ- 
ing means of war, alienate themselves from the 
dominion of the Law, and then wage war to 
destroy it. Aliens waging war from the out- 
side to destroy the dominion cannot have any 
right of the Law of the dominion. Aliens, 
whether natural or made by self-alienation, who 
wage war from the inside to destroy the 
dominion, should not, because of that uninten- 
tional circumstance, be considered as having a 
right of the Law of the dominion, which the 
same aliens cannot have if they should wage 
war from the outside. 



100 



FORM OF GOVERNMENTS 

Rebellion Rebellion to make their own dominion by 

is inherent conquest of land, or to change the form of their 
right of men , . & ,, , .,. 

who are government, or to change the laws in their 

subjects. government, is an inherent right of subjects, 

whether they are subjects of a King or subjects 

of Citizens. The condition of subjects is that 

they are subjects because compelled by superior 

force of arms. They have a right to question 

that superiority by their own force of arms 

whenever they elect to do so. Their inherent 

right arises from the fact that they are, as 

subjects, deprived of some of their natural right 

to have Liberty by the King or Citizens ruling 

them. 



101 



Citizens are 
limited in 
ruling right 
of making 
the laws. 



The Law of 
natural rights 
cannot be 
rightfully 
changed by 
the Citizens. 



The Law of 
their ruling 
rights cannot 
be changed by 
the Citizens. 



Chapter X. 

THE RULING RIGHT TO MAKE THE LAWS. 

The ruling right of Citizens to make the laws 
for the inhabitants and themselves, is a right 
limited both by the institution of natural society 
of the inhabitants for which they are made, and 
by the republican form of their governments, 
which puts limitations on the making of laws 
for the Citizens. 



The institution of natural society of the inhab- 
itants has its natural Law of right. The natural 
Law of right is the Law of the natural rights. 
The laws of possession are part of the Law of 
the natural rights. The Law of the natural 
rights may not rightfully be changed by the 
Citizens. The laws of possession may not be 
changed by the Citizens. The Law of the 
natural rights is fundamental Law of the Amer- 
ican People. 

The republican form of governments which 
:he American People made in their beginning 
s in its essence a perpetual compact between the 
Citizens : 

First, that they shall make laws for them- 
selves within the limitation that the right of 
the privileges of dominion which they may 
permit to themselves shall be equal to every one 
of themselves. 



102 



RULING RIGHT TO MAKE LAWS 



Citizens in 
making laws 
take on 
obligations of 
authority as 
rulers of the 
dominion. 



Citizens in 
making laws 



Second, that the duties or obligations of 
dominion which the laws they make, may require 
of themselves, shall be required equally of every 
one of themselves. 

Third, that they shall take no privileges of 
dominion and be required to assume no obliga- 
tions of dominion except as they shall be declared 
by their laws. 

The republican form of their governments is 
fundamental Law of the ruling rights of the 
Citizens. They cannot rightfully change this 
fundamental Law, which is a limitation on the 
constitutions which they may make for their 
States, and a limitation on laws made by them 
under their constitutions. 

Between the Citizens themselves all the laws 
they make are not rules of conduct prescribed 
by authority, as are laws by their common 
definition. They are rules of conduct made by 
authority for authority. The Citizens are all 
the authority. They are free and equal in all 
respects of it. It follows, then, that in making 
laws every Citizen takes on by force of the laws 
obligations of dominion equally in all respects 
with his fellows. The Citizens are a self- 
governing body of Men. They do not consent 
to be governed, because there are none who have 
exclusive right of government to be given con- 
sent. They self-govern by compact or contract, 
by free agreement on the laws which declare 
the rules of their self-government. 

Between the Citizens and their subjects the 
laws the Citizens make are rules of conduct 



103 



MY COUNTRY, 'TIS OF THEE 



for subjects 
do so by 
force of 
authority- 
over them. 



Citizens 
violate their 
fundamental 
Law in holding 
native-born 
inhabitants 
of their 
dominion 
as subjects. 



prescribed by them, the authority, for the sub- 
jects. The Citizens govern their subjects without 
their free consent. Subjects have right of the 
law, but not equal right with the Citizens. They 
may question the law as it relates to them 
particularly, but they cannot question the law 
which makes them subjects, or holds them 
subjects, of the Citizens. The Citizens may, 
and do, grant subjects in lands which they 
inhabit as natives of the soil without dominion 
to make States of it, the ruling right to make 
certain of the laws for these lands subject to 
their approval, and approving them for the 
subjects take on in these lands the obligation 
of them the same as the subjects. 

Subjects do not have full right of the Law of 
the natural rights. They are deprived by the 
Citizens of part of their natural right to Liberty 
and of part of their natural right to the pursuit 
of Happiness. Per contra, it is claimed for the 
Citizens that they give their subjects better 
security for their natural right to Life, and 
insure them more of the things which make life 
supportable for Citizens. This is questionable. 
Even if so, it is not reason for the Citizens' 
violation of their fundamental Law. Military 
necessity, the security of the dominion from 
conquest, may require that the Citizens hold 
the lands which their subjects inhabit. The 
Citizens finally determine that necessity. But, 
if holding the land gives an addition of military 
power to the Citizens' dominion, their holding 
the native inhabitants subjects, that is in a 
condition of inferiority to themselves, introduces 
elements which tend to weaken the dominion. 



104 



RULING RIGHT TO MAKE LAWS 



Subjects an 
element of 
weakness in 
a dominion 
of Citizens. 



Citizens in 
making laws 
for alien 
inhabitants 
do so by- 
force of right 
of dominion. 



Not only are subjects in a dominion of 
Citizens an element making for weakness of 
the dominion, but the Citizens weaken their 
dominion when they violate their fundamental 
Law. It does* not seem that the profit to the 
Citizens from holding the land can counter- 
balance their loss through holding the inhabitants 
as subjects. The taking of lands into the domin- 
ions and holding of their inhabitants as subjects 
was the first notable violation by the Citizens 
of their fundamental Law of the natural rights. 
It may be only coincidence without connection, 
that the period of the American People's Law, 
which may be described as the period of viola- 
tions of their fundamental Law, begins with 
this particular violation in 1898-1900. 

Between the Citizens and aliens who are 
inhabitants, the laws the Citizens make are rules 
of conduct prescribed by them, the authority, 
for the aliens. Aliens have' right of all of the 
Law of the natural rights, in respect of which 
they have more right than subjects. They have 
right of as much of the Citizens' Law of their 
dominion as the Citizen may have covenanted 
in treaties of their States with the aliens' foreign 
states severally, and as much more as they grant 
directly by their States' laws or permit by their 
sufferance. Aliens, as inhabitants, may not 
question any law which the Citizens make. 

Aliens who are inhabitants have no right to 
make any laws whatever, not even rules, for 
their own conduct between themselves. Aliens, 
by sufferance of Citizens, have been permitted 
to make so-called industrial laws regulating the 

105 



MY COUNTRY, 'TIS OF THEE 



terms and conditions of their engagement in 
industry, with, and without, association with 
Citizens in the industry. 



Two foreign 
states make 
laws for 
A merican 
Citizens in 
derogation of 



Two alien states in derogation of the dominion 
of the American People, which derogation the 
American People accept as their condition from 
belief in their comparative military weakness, 
have made laws for American Citizens and 
their dominion, enforce them. Japan has made a law that all 
persons of the Japanese race born in the Amer- 
ican dominion are born and remain subjects of 
the Emperor of Japan. Great Britain has made 
laws regulating the taking of some of the wild 
game by the inhabitants in the American States, 
and has made the laws which run on American 
ships on the high seas — the seas outside of three 
miles from American land. For instance, in 
1919 it is proclaimed, in substance, that the 
Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution is 
without force on American ships at sea outside 
three miles from American land. 



First fashion 
of Citizens 
in making 
laws was to 
first make 
constitutions 
directly and 
under them to 
make laws 
by elected 
representatives. 



The republican form of governments of the 
American People does not require of them any 
particular way or mode of making laws within 
the limitations of their fundamental Law. The 
first fashion of the Citizens in such law making 
was to make directly constitutions for their 
respective States. The constitutions, besides the 
basic framework of the Government organiza- 
tion, declare the limitations of laws which would 
be made by the Citizens representatively under 
them. This fashion was simple, and found to 
work well. Constitutions were drafted in so- 
called Constitutional Conventions, the Citizens 
electing the members. When the Constitutional 

106 



RULING RIGHT TO MAKE LAWS 



Mode of 
sifting void 
enactments 
from laws 
made by 
legislatures. 



New fashion 
which would 
abolish 
limitations of 
constitutions 
on law making 
power of 
legislatures. 



Conventions finished the drafts they were sub- 
mitted for acceptance or rejection to a vote of 
the Citizens. 

If, as it has happened, the legislature made a 
law which was outside of the limitations made 
by the constitution empowering the legislature, 
the law was null and void. It was, and is still, 
the function of Courts to finally find that a law 
was void because it was outside of, that is to say 
in violation of, the limitations on the power of 
•the legislature made in the constitution, and it 
is their law fashion of speech to say of such a 
void law that it is unconstitutional. The same 
form of speech, that the law is unconstitutional, 
has been the Courts' law fashion in finding a 
law null and void when it was made outside of 
the limitation on law making imposed on Citizens 
by the fundamental Law — the Law of the natural 
rights and the republican form of our govern- 
ments. This mode of sifting out null and void 
enactments of legislatures from the laws they 
make is simple when the force of the fundamental 
Law, much of it unwritten, is understood as 
underlying the constitutions. 

This first fashion of the Citizens in exercising 
their ruling right to make the laws continued 
without change, and even without attempt to 
change, beyond the first century of the dominion 
of the American People. Since about 1900, 
though, attempts are being made to establish 
new fashions in the Citizens' law making. One 
new fashion proposed by quite a large number 
of Citizens in several of the States, would invert 
the first fashion. Instead of the constitution 
declaring limitations on the law-making power 

107 



MY COUNTRY, 'TIS OF THEE 



Real purpose 
of new fashion 
of law making 
is to enable 
legislatures 
to destroy 
fundamental 
Law of the 
People. 



A fashion of 
law making 
directly by 
the Citizens. 



of legislatures, the new fashion would limit the 
constitutions to declaring the basic framework 
of the Government organizations. This, the 
proponents of the new fashion would accomplish 
by amendments to the constitutions providing 
that the Courts are prohibited from finding 
unconstitutional any law made by the legislature. 

The new fashion is not wrong because it is 
new and seems odd. If the American People 
want to make their laws, statutes as distin- 
guished from their fundamental Law, top-side- 
bottom, as a Chinaman would describe it in 
Pidgin-English, they have the ruling right to 
make them that way. The only requirement is 
that whether the Citizens elect that their laws 
made representatively shall be superior to their 
laws made directly, or elect the opposite way, 
the laws made must be within the limitations of 
their fundamental Law. 

But this is the requirement which the would-be 
makers of this new fashion in law making seek 
to avoid by their amendments to constitutions. 
They want their legislatures free to make laws 
(statutes) which destroy fundamental Law. To 
make them free, they would have the constitu- 
tions prohibit the Courts from finding enact- 
ments of the legislatures null and void. So, 
though the new fashion may not be said to be 
wrong because it is a different fashion from the 
first fashion, the purpose of it is to enable the 
making of wrong laws. 

The new fashion of law making adopted in 
several States following what Citizens would 
describe as a "drive," if they should stop long 
enough from being driven to think out what it, 

108 



RULING RIGHT TO MAKE LAWS 



Making of 
wrong laws 
made easy by 
new fashion. 



United States 
Constitutions 



was, is for the Citizens to make laws (statutes) 
directly as well as representatively by their 
legislatures. The Citizens, besides continuing 
their elected representative legislature to make 
laws, have made of themselves the equivalent of 
a second legislature of a single house with one 
rule, only, of procedure — the previous question. 
The trimming in this new fashion is done to the 
legislatures, the Citizens reserving power by 
their election to unmake laws (statutes) after 
the legislature has made them, and not giving 
the legislature power to unmake the laws after 
the Citizens have made them directly. In some 
States the Citizens put statutes, which they make 
directly, into the constitution as amendments so 
as to trim the Courts with the new fashion as 
well as the legislatures. The Citizens who made 
the "drive" for this new fashion of law making 
call it the Initiative and Referendum. The same 
Citizens who "drive" this new fashion are those 
who are attempting to "hog-tie" the remainder 
of the Citizens with the new fashion of law 
making, which would prohibit the Courts from 
finding laws (statutes) made by the legislatures 
null and void. 

This present largely adopted new fashion of 
law making is not wrong as a fashion. It is 
complicated, and works very badly, but the 
Citizens have the ruling right to make their 
laws in a fashion which is complicated and 
works badly so long as they like the fashion. 
It is a bad fashion, because it makes easy the 
making of wrong laws. 

The constitutions of the several States made 
in the older and still most generally observed 

109 



MY COUNTRY, 'TIS OF THEE 

are instruments fashion of law making, are instruments which 
embracing tne p eop i e f eacn s tate f t h e several, make 

C firZ P alliance originally and ^ directly by force_ of having the 

of the States, whole of the right of the dominion of the land. 

provision for This does not mean that the people of the State 

new States, have the whole of the actual dominion of the 

wision oj i vj k tn make their constitution. Only 

dominion and - ...,,_,. j 

creation of a the Peoples of the original Thirteen States and 

new State, and of the State of Texas, and of the Territory of 
constitution Hawaii, not yet a State, had, each of them, the 
for new tate. wno i e f tne actual dominion in their lands, as 

well as the whole of the right of the dominion. 

The Peoples of the new States, excepting Texas, 

never had the whole of the actual dominion in 

any of their lands. 

Four original The Constitutions of the United States are 
instruments of instruments of a different type from the consti- 

VnlteTsZes! tutions of the several ^ States. There are four 
instruments of Constitution or Constitutions: 
the Articles of Confederation of 1778, the Ordi- 
nance of 1784, the Ordinance of 1787, and the 
Constitution of 1789. It has been generally, 
but in error, assumed that there is only one 
instrument, the Constitution of 1789. This is 
the instrument referred to when the term Con- 
stitution of the United States is used. Wherever 
in the following pages the term Constitutions of 
the United States is used, it means the four 
instruments together. 

Constitutions of The Constitutions of the United States were 
United States mac j e> anc j are continued, by the States as domin- 
Ttates as such lons > not °v the Peoples of the States as Citizens 

of the United States, though they are so named 

and known. 

110 



RULING RIGHT TO MAKE LAWS 



Constitutions 
contain the 
covenants of 
alliance and 
Union of the 
States. 



Constitutions 
provide for 
new States 
and directly 
erect the 
State of the 
United States. 



These Constitutions contain the covenants of 
compact of firm alliance or Union made by and 
between the several States, each of the original 
Thirteen States, Texas and Hawaii joining in 
the alliance as a whole and independent actual 
dominion, and the other States with the right of 
the whole and independent dominion. 

They also contain the covenants of compact 
which, besides providing for the self-creation and 
admission to their Union of new States in all 
respects like themselves, directly create for them- 
selves, by division of their dominion, a new State 
with less than the whole right of dominion and 
less than the whole of the actual dominion of the 
land. Every State of the original Thirteen 
when they created the State of the United States, 
and Texas on its admission, severed from itself 
a like part of its actual dominion, and every 
State — the original Thirteen and the new — a like 
part of its right of dominion, and gave it to the 
United States. 

Constitutions They also contain provisions which make the 

institute the institution of government for the United States 
of the United an< ^ ^ le limitations on their law-making power. 
States. It is in these respects, only, that there is identity 

of type with the constitutions of the several 

States. 



A mendments 
to the 

Constitutions 
of the United 
States. 



It follows, then, that an amendment of the 
Constitutions of the United States may be an 
alteration of the covenants of the compact of 
alliance or Union of the States, or a change in 
the modes of self-creation and admission of new 
States, or additions to, or subtractions from, the 
dominion of the United States, or a change in 

111 



MY COUNTRY, 'TIS OF THEE 



Different 
provisions 
for making 
changes in 
Constitutions. 



Changes in 
the covenants 
of the Union 
of the States 
and in the 
covenants 
dividing the 
State , s 
dominion 
with the 
United States 
require 
ratification 
of all of 
the States. 



either the institution of government of the 
United States or the limitations of their law- 
making power. 

The Articles of Confederation — the Ordinance 
of 1784 and the Ordinance of 1787 — all provide 
for the alteration of their covenants in the same 
way — the confirmation of the alteration by all of 
the States. The Constitution of 1789 provides 
for amendment of its provisions by ratification 
of the amendment by three-fourths of the States. 

The Articles of Confederation contain most 
of the covenants of the firm alliance or Union 
of the States, and many of the covenants of 
division of their several dominions with the 
United States. The Constitution of 1789 
amended, altered some, but not all of the original 
covenants. It did not amend the provision for 
the alteration of its provisions. In other words, 
the provision in the Constitution of 1789 for the 
amendment of its provisions by three-fourths of 
the States did not substitute itself for the pro- 
vision in the Articles of Confederation for their 
alteration only by all the States. Both provisions 
are effective, but not as to the same articles or 
covenants. The reasons are plain. States join 
in alliances or Unions in all respects free. 
States make divisions of their dominions in all 
respects free. Both conditions are inherent in 
the nature of States of free Peoples. Alterations 
of the covenants of alliance or Union, and of 
divisions of dominion, require the consent or 
ratification of all the States to the alteration of 
covenant the same as to the original covenants. 
On the other hand, amendments to the Constitu- 
tion which do not change the covenants of the 

112 



RULING RIGHT TO MAKE LAWS 



All the States 
must join in 
making 
amendment 
to elect 
President by 
direct vote 
of Citizens. 



All the States 
must join in 
making the 
prohibition 
amendment. 



alliance or Union of the States, or change the 
dominion of the United States in the territories 
of the States, can be made by the ratification of 
three-fourths of the States, provided, always, 
that the amendments are within the limitations 
of the fundamental Law of the American People. 

For instance, it is a covenant of the firm 
alliance of the States, that every State votes as 
a State for President, one vote for each of its 
Representatives. Only by all of the States join- 
ing in the amendment of the Constitutions may 
this be changed for a covenant that the President 
shall be elected by the majority vote of the 
Citizens of the United States voting one vote 
each. But three-fourths of the States may 
amend the Constitution to give every State three 
Senators in place of two. 

It is a covenant of the firm alliance of the 
States that it is perpetual. Three-fourths of 
the States may not change this covenant by their 
amendment of the Constitution. All of the States 
must join in the amendment to change this 
covenant. 

The limit of dominion of commerce defined 
in the Constitution for the United States is the 
regulation, subject to certain prohibitions of 
regulation, of commerce with foreign nations, 
and among the several States, and with the 
Indian tribes. The States severed this much of 
their dominion from the whole by the Constitu- 
tion, but they did not sever from themselves 
any of their dominion over their domestic com- 
merce, the commerce of the inhabitants of their 
states, except Indians, among themselves. The 

113 



MY COUNTRY 



TIS OF THEE 



Three-fourths 
of States 
make the 
amendment 
for direct 
election of 
Senators. 



Form of laws 
during early 
period was 
impersonal 
and self- 
executing. 



Tenth Amendment was intended to make plain 
the limits of the severed dominions which were 
made the dominion of the United States. 

The powers not delegated to the United 
States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it 
to the States, are reserved to the States, respec- 
tively, or to the people. 

The Eighteenth Amendment would change the 
theretofore limit of dominion of the United 
States in respect to commerce by enlarging it 
to include the commerce of the inhabitants of the 
States within them, intrastate commerce. This 
change of the limit of the dominion of the United 
States may only be made by all the States joining 
in the amendment of the constitution. 

The Seventeenth Amendment was made by 
three-fourths of the States ratifying. It is an 
amendment altering the law erecting the govern- 
ment of the United States by changing the mode 
of electing Senators. It does not alter the grants 
of dominion previously made by the States, nor 
affect in any way their covenants of Union of 
the States. 

The form of the laws made by the Citizens 
during the period of their first fashion of law 
making was characteristically impersonal and 
self-executing. They were very infrequently 
made "to get" a particular person, or group, or 
class of persons. The few so made were, almost 
without exception, disapproved by the majority 
of Citizens in elections, or by the Courts. The 
alien and sedition laws made by Congress in 
1798 were disapproved by a majority of the 

114 



RULING RIGHT TO MAKE LAWS 



Citizens at the following elections, and in conse- 
quence repealed. A law made during the period 
of the Civil War "to get" the home estate of 
a Confederate General which was within the 
Union lines, by providing that the taxes must 
be paid by the owner in person, was declared 
unconstitutional by the Courts, and the estate 
restored to the General's heirs. 



After the 
legislature 
made the law 
the People 
made the 
decision of 



The self-executing character of the laws 
(statutes) gave the Citizens a practically direct 
and effective means of getting rid of laws made 
by their legislatures which they did not want. 
The execution of these laws had to be initiated 
whether or not by the Citizens interested before the officers 
it went as law. charged with administering the law acted. If 
the Citizens did not want a particular law, they 
did not initiate any proceeding under it. No 
one was harmed. The law became what was 
described as a "dead letter." Sometimes a 
dead-letter law was resurrected by some Citizen, 
to the surprise and disgust of the remaining 
Citizens, who would then, grumbling at the 
trouble, repeal it through the legislature. 



Their self- 
executing 
laws made 
American 
People seem 
self-governing 
to themselves. 



The self-executing, impersonal character of 
the laws- made them fit easily a free People. 
Someone had to be harmed before the law was 
thought of as a recourse. It was this character 
of their laws which made the American People 
seem to themselves during this early period as 
self-governing. If a particular law made by one 
of their legislatures suited them, they observed 
it in self-government. If it did not suit them, 
they made it a dead letter by forgetting it, also 
in self-government. If it happened that the 
Citizens wanted a law more immediately than a 

115 



MY COUNTRY 



TIS OF THEE 



Citizens is 
law made 
by right. 



legislature could make it, they made it them- 
selves directly, and it was right law, and used 
in self-government by free Men. 

Horse-thief The law made directly by the Citizens to fit 

Lynch Law of their want of a law to summarily stop horse 
stealing, under which the Citizens nearest at 
hand would arrest the horse-thief, try him, and 
hang him or otherwise punish him, if found 
guilty, is law made by right by the Citizens in 
pursuit of their self-government. Though un- 
written, it was so widely published or proclaimed 
that everyone knew it, and agreed to it as the 
law — the horse-thieves as well as the Citizens. 

"Unwritten** The law known and referred to as the "Un- 

law of Citizens wr itten Law," is another instance of the Citizens 
by right making a law which they want directly, 
and applying it when as juries they become 
Courts charged with finding and applying the 
law. Both these laws are within the limitations 
of the fundamental law, and that is the true test 
of a law made by the Citizens, and not the 
ashion of the making. 



by right. 



New fashion 
laws made 
personal and 
for operation 
by officers. 



The laws made in the new fashion are char- 
acteristically personal, and in place of being self- 
executing, the fashion is for each law to have 
an official executioner. This officer has other 
titles less suggestive, but he is no more and no 
less than that — official executioner of the law. 



New fashion The new fashion law is made "to get" par- 
laws made ticular persons, or particular groups or classes 
particular °* P ersons > an d " to l et " other particular persons, 

persons and or groups or classes of persons pass free from 
"to let" others the operation of the law by way of exceptions 

116 



RULING RIGHT TO MAKE LAWS 



pass free from 
their operation. 



Discretion 
given to 
officers in 
execution 
under new 
fashion laws. 



Instance of 
exercise of 
official 
executioner's 
discretion 
"to get" a 
particular 
person and 
"to let" others 
pass through 
the law. 



made in it. The purpose of the official execu- 
tioner is, first, to exercise the discretion of the 
law "to let" pass free of operation from the law 
those persons, or groups or classes of persons, 
which his discretion finds within the exceptions, 
and second, "to get" the particular persons the 
law was made "to get." 

The discretion this new fashion law gives each 
official executioner is god-like. It makes of him 
more than an ordinary executioner of law, for 
example more than a district attorney, and 
properly classifies him by type as a Lord High 
Executioner. The state of Tipitu has one Lord 
High Executioner for all of its laws. The 
American States, whose Citizens make laws in 
the new fashion, have a Lord High Executioner 
for every new fashion law. There are so many 
of them that they constitute a Society like an 
ancient Scottish Clan or a modern Chinatown 
Tong. The Lord High Executioner of Tipitu 
has extenuating circumstances. One may, on 
occasion, insult him. He says so. There are 
no extenuating circumstances to Lord High 
Executioners of new fashion laws in American 
States. One may not insult one. They say so. 

The State of California has, one of many, a 
new-fashion law known to the Tong as the 
"Blue-Sky" law, which is provided with a Lord 
High Executioner whose Blue-Sky title of office 
is Commissioner of Corporations. The law is 
made "to get" particular persons who, in Cali- 
fornia, engage in making and selling shares of 
stock of corporations without having first bought 
a "permit" from the Commissioner of Corpora- 
tions. The Commissioner has discretion to sell 

117 



MY COUNTRY, 'TIS OF THEE 



Citizens 
cannot make 
dead letter 
of a new 
fashion law. 



or not to sell a permit, and discretion to fix the 
price in money and terms when he sells. The 
Courts, by express provisions in the law, may 
not review any order the Commissioner makes, 
except in ascertainment of his good faith in 
making it. 

In pursuance of his execution of the law, the 
Commissioner has recently — in 1919 — made an 
order in the case of a corporation which under- 
took to sell its shares without his permit, direct- 
ing a district attorney to proceed to criminally 
prosecute under the law — which makes the 
offense a felony, with a maximum of five years 
in jail and ten thousand dollars fine, or both, on 
conviction — a named person who was trustee to 
sell the shares, and the publishers of several 
newspapers which advertised the sale, and in the 
order specified that the newspapers were to be 
treated leniently, and that the named person was 
the party the Commissioner of Corporations 
was after. 

The vermiform appendix of an official execu- 
tioner to every law made in the new fashion 
has deprived the Citizens of their old-fashion 
means of making a dead letter of a law they 
do not want. The initiative of using the new- 
fashion law is not with the Citizens, but with 
the official executioner. He uses the initiative 
"to get" persons on whom to execute by the law, 
and as an executioner who did not execute 
would soon himself be executed from his office, 
he is certain to use his law. So, in place of 
ignoring a new-fashion law and making it a 
dead letter, the Citizens, if they do not want the 

118 



RULING RIGHT TO MAKE LAWS 



Referendum, 
and Initiative 
are bad law 
means of 
unmaking 
bad law. 



Under new 
fashion laws 
the official 
executioners 
rule the 
Citizens — as 
in Tipitu, 
but not so 
brightly. 



law, must use the Referendum or Initiative to 
become rid of it and of the vermiform appendix 
to it. 

Laws made "to get" too many persons may 
be stopped by a Referendum or repealed by an 
Initiative. The outcry of a large number of 
persons against being gotten by the official 
executioner of the law attracts the attention of 
the Citizens, and if it arouses their sympathy 
as well, the Referendum or Initiative may stop 
or repeal the law. But in the case of laws made 
"to get" a comparatively small number of per- 
sons each, the Citizens do not become attentive 
to the small noise and sympathetic in sufficient 
numbers to stop the law through the Referendum 
or Initiative. This shows the badness of the 
Referendum and Initiative as a means of unmak- 
ing bad laws. They are not always a means. 
It depends a great deal on whether the law is 
made "to get" a large or small number of 
persons. 

Citizens are not self-governing under the new- 
fashion laws. The new-fashion laws split them 
up into classes of different degrees of potential 
malefaction (malefaction in new-fashion law 
definition), and every class is governed (ruled) 
by the official executioner of the class. In case 
of a very large class of Citizens with correspond-* 
ingly great potential malefaction, which is to 
say with great potential resistance and indisposi- 
tion to being "gotten" by the official executioner, 
the official executioner does the ruling of the 
class with an army. 

119 



MY COUNTRY, 'TIS OF THEE 



Official 
Executioner 
of a new 
fashion law 
proposes to 
rule the 
Citizens with 
his army. 



T oss of 
law making 
sense by the 
Citizens. 



For instance, to enforce, in 1920 and after, 
a certain new-fashion law made "to get" a class 
of very great potential malefaction, perhaps the 
majority of the men, the official executioner 
announces that he has organized a mobile force 
of thirty thousand deputies (sub-executioners) 
to move from point to point in the United States 
wherever the class of anti-prohibition potential 
malefaction seems likely to be actively resistant. 
Also, that he proposes to add to this regular 
force, which may be described as Federal "shock 
troops," many times their number of local or 
vState executioners' deputies and volunteers. 
Thirty thousand is the number of men of all 
arms in a modern army division at war strength. 
The numbers which every State is expected to 
add would make several modern army corps. 
All of them together would be a great army. 
The Citizens will not be self-governing with this 
army of the Lord High Executioner massed 
against every person of them in turn. The Lord 
High Executioner, with his army, will rule the 
Citizens. 

Their making of new-fashion laws has largely 
destroyed the law-making sense of the Citizens 
through bringing about its disuse. The begin- 
ning of the disuse of the law-making sense of 
the Citizens was made in the early 1900's, or 
late 1890's, when, through false suggestion of 
officers, they first came to believe that an officer, 
a mere man of themselves tarred with the same 
brush, would be a maker of better laws than the 
political party of men, of whom he was one, 
who had elected him to be an officer. The 

120 



RULING RIGHT TO MAKE LAWS 



Citizens of 
the present — 
1916-1920— 
period not 
using their 
collective 
law-making 
fiense; in its 
place accept 
dictation of 
their laws 
from officers 
and prophets. 



Legislatures 
in present — 
1916-1919— 
period act as 
registrars of 



Citizens becoming cozened out of belief in them- 
selves collectively as political parties, through 
believing this false suggestion, ceased depending 
collectively on their own sense of the right in 
their government, and sans sense commenced 
depending individually on suggestion either from 
their officers, or from those of their prophets 
who wanted to be officers, for the making of 
the laws. 

Naturally, the disuse of their own law-making 
sense has been as progressive with the passing 
years since 1900 as the acceptance of suggestion 
of officers which took its place in the beginning, 
and of dictation of officers which, since 1911, 
has taken the place of suggestion by them. 
Very many, perhaps most, of the present fourth 
of the Citizens who were voters before 1900, 
either have forgotten that they ever had, or 
have become convinced that they never had, any 
collective law-making sense as political parties 
responsible for the making of the laws and for 
the conduct of the government under them. The 
remaining three-quarters of the present Citizens 
having become voters since 1900, have been 
accustomed from their beginning to have officers 
or prophets dictate to them the laws to be made, 
so naturally have no understanding of a Citizens' 
collective law-making sense, which they have 
never known, though it was their birthright to 
have it. 

Citizens, representative of their fellows as 
legislatures, do not in the present — 1916-1919 — 
period, collectivetly initiate laws. Instead, they 
act as registrars, and register, through the form 

121 



MY COUNTRY 



TIS OF THEE 



laws made of legislation, the laws which officers dictate and 

by officers. w j s h registered by legislation. Many of these 

dictated laws are in general terms assignments 

to officers of the Citizens' right to make the 

laws. 

President's For instance, if a Citizen Member of either 

^fwslor 101 ^ House of Con g r ess (in period 1916-1919) intro- 
aws for duces a Bill for enactment into a law without. 

to enact. it s having come to him from the President's 

officer whose duty it will be to execute the law, 
the Bill, before Congress acts on it, is sent to 
the officer to get an expression of his wants with 
respect to it. It has come to be expected that 
the officer will send back his draft of a Bill in 
place of the Citizen Member Bill, and that Con- 
gress will enact the Bill drafted by the officer. 
State Legislatures in similar fashion ask and 
take the dictation of the Governor of the State 
as to laws which they enact. 

So much a matter of accepted course has 
come to be the dictation of laws by the interested 
officer that it has been seriously proposed and 
considered to abolish Citizens' service as mem- 
bers of legislatures, either in part or altogether. 
It is proposed for Congress that the Cabinet 
Secretaries of the President have seats in one 
or the other House. It has been proposed by 
some of the Citizens of the State of California, 
where, since 1912, their collective law-making 
sense has been as extinct as the dodo, to abolish 
the State Legislature altogether, and to vest the 
law-making right in a Board of Officers appoint- 
ive by the Governor, the Board to remain in 
continuous session making laws. This would 
very likely have been done, only that it was 

122 



Proposals 
to abolish 
legislatures 
in part or 
altogether 
and to have 
appointed 
officers to 
make the laws. 



RULING RIGHT TO MAKE LAWS 



Citizens 
divesting 
themselves 
of their 
law-making 
right divest 
themselves 
of dominion. 



found an unnecessary refinement of fashion in 
"hog-tying" California. The Tong of Lord 
High Executioners of the new-fashion laws was 
found to have "hog-tied" California without any 
refinement whatever. 

The Citizens cannot divest themselves of their 
ruling right to make the laws without destroy- 
ing, or surrendering, which is the same in effect, 
their dominion. The exercise of the right to 
make the laws is of the essence of dominion. In 
the end those men who make the laws for the 
land become the men who rule the land. For 
nearly twenty years up to the present — 1920 — 
the Citizens, making one or another excuse to 
themselves, have been progressively divesting 
themselves of more and more of their ruling 
right to make the laws. The actual making of 
the laws has been taken, always progressively, 
part by officers, President's officers and State 
Governors, and part by prophets, whom, because 
of their flattering auguries spoken from rostrums 
and published in newspapers, the People would 
make officers in the places of present officers. 
It is visible now to the Citizens who look, that 
the present officers who make the laws rule them/ 
and that when the prophets come to make more 
laws than the present officers, they will thrust 
them out and become in turn the successor 
officers who will rule them. 

Citizens The Citizens are still able, if they will, to 

stdlable to retake all of their right to make the laws of 

, e , . eir which they have heretofore divested themselves. 
law-making „. J . . . 

right from '*■ ne way of the retaking is the opposite of the 
the officers and way in which they have made their divestment. 
the prophets. They must refuse to excuse themselves from 

123 



MY COUNTRY, 'TIS OF THEE 



The present 
Citizens must 
get the 
collective 
law-making 
sense of the 
first Citizens 
if they would 
hold again 
the dominion. 



taking the trouble to make the laws. For in- 
stance, they must refuse to excuse themselves 
because their present legislatures are ineffective 
because constituted of ineffectives of themselves. 
They must accept, take, the trouble — it is real 
trouble — to make legislatures effective by consti- 
tuting them from their effectives. They must 
refuse to accept dictation of laws from officers. 
They must stone the prophets to be rid of them, 
for they are false prophets always, and will run 
like jackrabbits from the stoning. They must 
ruthlessly make fallen prophets out of the present 
officers, who have dictated the laws to be made, 
or who, as Dictators, have made the laws. This 
will be real trouble, because many of the Citizens 
have mistaken the pose of the officers for the 
infallibility of a god transcended from Olympus 
expressly to rule the American People's domin- 
ion. They must repeal by the legislatures, or by 
themselves make dead letters, the new-fashion 
laws. They must clean the offices of States of 
the Tongs of Lord High Executioners of laws 
and of the parasite office-holders they have bred 
like flies. 

All of these things of the right way mean that 
the present Citizens must get themselves the 
law-making sense which they have been misled 
to think it was a Citizen's virtue to suppress. 
They must bring themselves together to believe 
unreservedly in the potency of their collective 
law-making sense as political parties. The Cit- 
izens will have to take the trouble — it will be a 
great deal of trouble to every Citizen, since he 
cannot deputize it, or delegate it, or hire it out, 
but must take it in his own person — to collect 

124 



% 

RULING RIGHT TO MAKE LAWS 

their law-making sense into political parties 
wholly free of officers who dictate the law and of 
prophets who suggest themselves as the law. 
It is not an easy way. The Citizens have been 
taking the easy way for twenty years without 
even looking backward. It is a hard way. It 
is the only way, if the present Citizens would 
themselves hold again the dominion which the 
first American Citizens made in the hard way 
by their arms in war. 



125 



Chapter XL 

RULING RIGHT OF CITIZENS TO ELECT 
OFFICERS AND COURTS. 

Ruling right The ruling right of the Citizens to elect their 
of Citizens to omcers and Courts was highly and generally 
6 e< A r °" lcers ] prized by them from the beginning of their 
highly prized dominion until about 1900. Since 1900 this 
since 1900, ruling right has been less highly regarded gen- 
erally, and each passing year has added to the 
number of Citizens who do not prize it at all. 
This is very conclusively shown by the increas- 
ing number of Citizens who do not vote for 
officers and Courts at the elections. The per- 
centage ratio of voters to Citizens is constantly 
decreasing. 

Elections The reason the Citizens generally do not now 

since 1900 (1900-1919) prize their ruling right to elect 
offer fewer • 

prizes of office tne i r officers and Courts is because the exercise 
to Citizens of the ruling right by voting in elections now, 
than before, literally, offers no prizes to them. 

From the beginning of their dominion until 
about 1900, voting at elections did offer them 
prizes to be won or missed. During this period 
all of the officers and all of the Courts were 
either directly or indirectly elected by the voting 
of the Citizens. Those not directly elected were 

126 



RIGHT TO ELECT OFFICERS AND COURTS 



elected indirectly through the election of the 
chief officers and Courts, who, after their elec- 
tion, appointed their subordinate officers. These 
appointed subordinate officers were the prizes 
for Citizens voting. 

Citizens It was a Citizen very poor in friends who did 

had personal lot h ave a t least one friend who hoped and 

'voting 1 bTcause expected, through the direct election of some 

it might chief officer, to become a subordinate officer by 

get places his selection and appointment. The hope and 

for friends. expectation of subordinate officer appointments 

for friends widened the interest of Citizens in 

the election of chief officers, and gave them a 

reason in personal benefit for voting. Every 

Citizen in this way came to see a prize for a 

friend, if not for himself, in voting at elections, 

and so prized and used his right to vote. 



Citizens* 
interest in 



make. 



That places to be had for their friends through 
appointment by a directly elected officer, were 
e ec ing officers ^ p r j zes which ma de the Citizens prize their 
and Courts , . l . . , . . rr r , „ 

in proportion ru l m §" right to elect their officers and Courts, 
to number of is to be seen in the fact that the Citizens were 
appointments generally interested in the election of officers and 
they could Courts in proportion to the number of appoint- 
ments of subordinates they could make if elected. 
There was always more interest taken by the 
Citizens in the election of a Sheriff than in the 
election of the Court, of which he was an officer. 
The Sheriff could make more appointments to 
subordinate offices than the Court. This com- 
parative interest in the election of different 
officers and Courts shows plainly in the total 
votes cast for the offices at elections. The totals 
of the votes for the office are largest where the 

127 



MY COUNTRY, 'TIS OF THEE 



officer or Court has the most appointments of 
subordinates, and smallest where the officer has 
the fewest appointments of subordinates. 

Citizens adopt Several years before 1900, some Citizens 
Chinese whose friends had probably been uniformly un- 

met o of successful in obtaining- the prizes of appoint- 
selectms • 

officers, ments as subordinate officers through elections 

vest the offices of chief officers, declared that subordinate officers 
permanently so appointed were bound to give poor service, 
in them ^ an d were costly to the taxpayers, because every 

and call it ^ }5 time a new chief officer was elected he appointed 
ivi ervice. new su b rdinates. These Citizens proposed, 
instead, that the appointment of subordinate 
officers should be taken away from the chiefs 
and be given to permanent independent com- 
missions, appointed by some other chief execu- 
tive than the one elected to the particular office. 
The commissions were to award the prizes of 
appointments by their conception of superior 
fitness as demonstrated in competitive scholastic 
examinations which they would give applicants 
for the appointments. The appointments when 
so made were to be permanent instead of at the 
pleasure of the chief officer. The Chinese have 
employed this method of selection for appoint- 
ment of all their officers for many centuries, so 
that the plan the American People adopted was 
not new. The Citizens, however, have given it 
a new name, calling it "Civil Service." 



Citizens 

accepting 

Civil Service 

have 

progressively 

abandoned 

ruling right 



The Citizens have progressively accepted this 
Civil Service plan for the appointment of sub- 
ordinate officers who would serve under elected 
chief officers, and since 1900 nearly all sub- 
ordinate officers have come under this mode of 
appointment. The consequence is that chief 

128 



RIGHT TO ELECT OFFICERS AND COURTS 



to elect 
officers and 
Courts. 



Civil Service 
is not good 
official service. 



officers still voted for, not having the appoint- 
ment of their subordinate officers, do not interest 
the Citizens generally, so they are progressively 
more and more ceasing to vote for them at 
elections, and in many cases abolishing their 
election altogether, making them appointive by 
remaining officers instead. 

Civil Service, to employ the term by which it 
is commonly described, is not good official serv- 
ice. It is not as good official service as was had 
when elected chief officers appointed their sub- 
ordinate officers, and it is very much more costly 
to the taxpayers, to the inhabitants, and to the 
Citizens. 

That Civil Service is very much more costly 
service to the taxpayers, inhabitants and Citi- 
zens, is very conclusively shown by the experi- 
ence of the City of San Francisco, where the two 
kinds of service were in operation alongside of 
each other during the period 1900-1914. For 
the several offices in which the elected chiefs 
appointed their own subordinate officers, the 
total annual cost of operation increased between 
1900 and 1914 less than 40 per cent, which was 
at a less rate than the increase of population of 
the city during this period. For the remaining 
offices in which the subordinate officers were 
appointed through Civil Service, the total annual 
cost of operation increased between 1900 and 
1914 more than 250 per cent, which was at a 
rate five times greater than the rate of increase 
of the city population. 

No person has That Civil Service officers give good service 
is a supposition, not a fact. It is supposed to be 
good service because, compared with the service 

129 



Civil Service 
is more costly 
service than 
same service 
obtained in 
former way 
through 
elections. 



interest in 



MY COUNTRY 



TIS OF THEE 



criticizing 
Civil Service 
officers, but 
every Citizen 
had personal 
interest in 
criticism of 
service of 
elected officers. 



when the elected chief officer appointed his sub- 
ordinates, there is really no public criticism of 
it as a whole. The reason is that no one is 
personally interested to publicly criticise an office 
conducted by Civil Service place holders, because 
his criticism would be made to appear mere 
fault-finding to the public, since the public would 
see it as fruitless — it could not efTect the removal 
of the Civil Service place holders, but only of a 
scapegoat at the most. 

On the other hand, Citizens who want the 
subordinate places for themselves or their friends 
are personally interested to publicly criticise an 
office conducted by subordinate officers appointed 
by an elected chief, because if the criticism is 
proper it can be fruitful. It can result in the 
Citizens electing another chief officer at the next 
election, and so changing the subordinate officers. 
Such interested criticism, indeed, has always been 
looked to by the Citizens as the surest means of 
information for them as to the conduct of the 
officers, and as their means for reconstructive 
discipline of their conduct if not satisfactory. 

Civil Service The progressive appointment of officers 

has created an through Civil Service has created an office-hold- 

office-holdmg ing . c | asg of Qtizens, w hich, in self-development 

^"making as a c ^ ass through its permanent possession of 

itself the the offices, is making itself the Government. As 

Government, a class it has already very largely freed itself 

from the restraint of laws made by the Citizens 

independently of its suggestion, and may be said 

to make its own laws, ruling by them instead of 

serving under laws made by the Citizens. 

Civil Service In permanent possession of the subordinate 
officers, by offices in municipalities the officers organize into 

130 



RIGHT TO ELECT OFFICERS AND COURTS 



combining, fix Civil Service Unions, modeled after labor unions, 
their duties with which they affiliate in federations to secure 
and salaries. ^ same ^j n( j Q £ enc j s — ^ mon0 p ]y f t h e 

offices by members of their union, and the fixing 
of their official duties, hours of public office 
service, and salaries, by their union rules, in 
place of having them fixed by the Citizens by 
their laws. In permanent possession of the 
subordinate offices in the Government of a State, 
they organize themselves into State Civil Service 
associations, hold conventions, and formulate 
laws in their own behalf, to be suggested to the 
legislatures for enactment. 

In permanent possession of most of the sub- 
ordinate Federal offices, the Civil Service Federal 
officers have seized the larger and better part of 
the public land for themselves, seized the water 
and water power of the lakes and rivers, bribed 
States with public money to make cessions of 
jurisdiction, in form to the United States, in 
fact to themselves, of vast areas of their soil, 
broke from office chief officers who refused to 
break the laws at their behest, ignored Courts, 
, and have built and operate with the public money 
a great publicity machine to mislead the Citizens. 

Citizens are ^ That Citizens are notably ceasing to vote at 
notably ceasing e l ec tions, and that those who continue to vote 
take little interest in the election of any officers 
except chief executives who still appoint sub- 
ordinates, is much more observed than the cause 
of it in the Civil Service has been understood. 
It is generally recognized that the decrease of 
the vote at elections is not a good condition. 
Without any real constructive basis from under- 
standing of the cause, numerous plans have been 

131 



Civil Service 
Federal 
Officers have 
seized vast 
tracts of 
the best 
public land. 



to vote at 
elections. 



MY COUNTRY, 'TIS OF THEE 



Civil Service 
laws should 
be repealed. 



proposed to cure the condition. One proposition 
is that Citizens be required by law to vote at 
elections, under threat of a penalty if they do not. 
This, instead of putting heart into voting, would 
take the heart out of it. Another proposition is 
to have fewer elected chief officers — a short 
ballot, so called. Obviously this would cause 
more Citizens to stop voting. 

There is only one way to cure the condition. 
That way is to remove the cause — Civil Service. 
The Citizens want to take a human interest in 
voting because they are human. They want to 
vote their friends into possession of the offices 
because they are human. They want to see their 
officers close to themselves as they do when they 
are electing them, instead of having them made 
for them by a mechanical calculating machine so 
remote from them that they cannot take the 
works apart and then put them together again, 
because they are human. They want to vote for 
more officers rather than for fewer officers, for 
that way they can see that being a Citizen gives 
them something individual, which is tangible and 
valuable, because they are human. 



132 



Chapter XII. 

THE RULING RIGHT TO SERVE AS 
OFFICERS AND AS COURTS. 



Service of 
Citizens as 
officers and 
Courts offers 
them distinc- 
tion and 
honor among 
their fellows. 



The ruling right of Citizens to serve as officers 
and as Courts offers to them the only oppor- 
tunity for distinction and honor among their 
fellows, which is permitted by their institution 
of natural society and the compact between 
themselves in their form of government — honor 
for those Citizens who serve as Courts, and 
distinction for those who serve as officers. 

Distinction among their fellows is the only 
reward which service as officers can give Citi- 
zens. Officers do not rule Citizens by virtue of 
the right of the office which they may hold. The 
possession of office confers no privileges on the 
officer. It imposes obligations of duty on him. 
The fundamental Law and the laws which other 
Citizens make are over him, and direct his every 
officer acts as a duty to be performed according 
to the law. Office is an obligation of service in 
the society of the American People — service 
under the laws. 

Honor is their fellows' reward to the Citizens 
who serve as Courts, because the honor of those 
who so serve is the foundation of the security 
of the People's institution of natural society. It 
is because of confidence of Citizens in the honor 
of their Courts that their judgments are accepted 

133 



MY COUNTRY 



TIS OF THEE 



Powers of 
officers are 
representative. 



In certain 
contingencies 
Citizens 
delegate all 
their ruling 
powers 
temporarily 
to officers. 



as declaring the right and giving justice. Very, 
very few Citizens who serve as Courts fail in 
their honor. While human as other Citizens, 
and liable to commit error as they are, the 
honesty of their judgments is rarely impeachable. 

The rightful powers of officers to perform 
their respective duties,are representative in char- 
acter. The officers have the authority and force 
of the physical ruling power of all the Citizens. 
They act always in the name of The People, 
which is the same as all the Citizens, and so 
exercising the authority of all their ruling power, 
represent it. They have no inherent or inherited 
powers as officers. There are none in the insti- 
tution of natural society to be inherited. There 
are none in the republican form of governments 
to be inherited. They have no permanently 
granted powers from the Citizens. The Citizens 
retain all their ruling powers from any perma- 
nent grant of them to officers. 

Recognizing, however, that certain cases may 
arise in which physical ruling power, represented 
through civil officers of government, is too indi- 
rect and relatively remote to accomplish its pur- 
poses, the Citizens, by express terms of compact 
in their constitutions, provide for delegating, 
during the period of such cases, all their physical 
ruling powers to military officers. The cases in 
which this delegation of their ruling powers is 
made by the Citizens are cases of rebellion or of 
invasion, when the immediate safeguarding of 
the persons and property of the inhabitants, or 
of the dominion of the Citizens, may temporarily 
require such delegation. In such cases the 
President, or a State Governor, is empowered 

134 



RIGHT TO SERVE AS OFFICERS AND AS COURTS 



In certain 
other cases 
Citizens may 
exercise their 
ruling power 
directly instead 
of through 
officers. 



Vigilante 
law and 
lynch law. 



Citizens who 
apply lynch 



to declare martial law, that is to say military 
law, shall rule in his person as the military 
commander-in-chief, and the civil law, adminis- 
tered by the civil officers through the Courts, 
shall be suspended. 

In certain other cases in which the Citizens' 
physical ruling power, represented by officers 
having its authority, is too indirect and relatively 
remote to accomplish its purpose of securing the 
safety of inhabitants and their possessions from 
rapine and pillage by outlaws, the Citizens them- 
selves may temporarily exercise their physical 
ruling power directly on the outlaws. In these 
cases the Citizens rightfully have the right of 
their own physical ruling power, the same as 
their Chief Executive has it when, in cases of 
rebellion, it is temporarily delegated to him on 
his own initiative declaration. In acting in such 
cases the Citizens are not bound to observe any 
form of civil law in dealing with the outlaws, 
because they are really acting as a volunteer 
military force of Citizens. 

Citizens do, usually, observe rude forms of 
procedure of military law in capturing and dis- 
posing of the outlaws. These rude laws are 
termed in the vernacular Vigilante law, or Lynch 
law, very much according to the degree of mili- 
tary organization of the Citizens. Without 
regard to the name, the law is good American 
People's law, and more law than outlaws, whose 
acts of outlawry have caused the Citizens' mili- 
tary organization to subdue them, are entitled 
to have. 

While it is to be regretted that Citizens have, 
at times past and to come, to deal with outlaws 

135 



MY COUNTRY 



TIS OF THEE 



law to subdue 
outlaws do 
not breach 
the law of 
the land. 



Powers of 
officers made 
and defined 
by law. 



Officers' acts 
are all 
directed acts. 



directly by themselves, exercising their physical 
ruling power to subdue them, because officers 
having the lawful authority of that power are 
too weak and ineffective to prevent or punish 
the acts of outlawry, the Citizens do not, by 
their acting in such cases, make themselves out- 
laws. Whatever presumptions there are, are in 
favor of the Citizens and against the officers who 
failed or neglected to use their authority of law. 
Instead of Grand Juries indicting Citizens for 
dealing with the outlaws, they should indict the 
officers whose failure invited the Citizens to act 
in their place. 

The powers of officers are made and defined 
by law. They take obligation on being made 
officers to perform their duties as officers accord- 
ing to law. This is how officers come to serve 
instead of to rule Citizens. The officers are 
bound to do what the laws made by the Citizens 
say they shall, or may, do, and their powers are 
the ruling power of all the Citizens when acting 
within law, and none of it when acting without 
(outside of) the law. 

Officers' acts are all directed acts — directed 
by law. Where no executive discretion is given 
by law to officers, the officers are without discre- 
tion, and are said to act ministerially. Where 
the officers are given discretion by law, their acts 
are said to be executive. When an officer em- 
powered to act ministerially neglects or refuses 
to perform a ministerial act, a person who is 
injured by the refusal or neglect has a right of 
appeal to the Courts to compel the officer to 
perform the ministerial act. When an officer 
empowered with discretion has exercised his 

136 



RIGHT TO SERVE AS OFFICERS AND AS COURTS 



Classes of 
officers made 
by differences 
of nature 
of duties. 



Election 
Officers. 



Fiscal 
Officers. 



discretion in his act under the law, the Courts 
have no power to compel him to change his act. 

Officers may be classed by the general nature 
of the duties given them by law as Court Officers, 
fiscal officers, and executive officers. 

Court officers include Sheriffs, marshals, con- 
stables, attorneys, clerks, receivers, reporters, 
coroners, administrators, recorders, and the like. 
They are the inhabitants' officers in that, under 
the Courts, it is their combined function of office 
to secure to all the inhabitants, between them- 
selves, whether citizens, subjects, or aliens, all 
of their natural rights, and so to maintain un- 
changed the inhabitants' institution of natural 
society. 

Election officers are in function special inferior 
Courts of Citizens provided with Court officers 
for the special purpose of conducting elections 
by the Citizens. 

Fiscal officers include assessors, appraisers, 
tax collectors, license collectors, collectors and 
surveyors of customs, internal revenue and cus- 
toms officers, treasurers, controllers, auditors, 
and the like. They have, as such, no discretion- 
ary authority whatever. Their duties are exclu- 
sively ministerial. Their combined function of 
office is to assess or appraise the value of any 
property on which a tax is levied by law made by 
the Citizens, collect the taxes under whatever 
name they may be called in law, hold the taxes 
and other public money safely, and pay it out as 
directed by law made by the Citizens. They are 
officers of the Citizens' dominion in that they 
exercise the ruling right of the Citizens to 

137 



MY COUNT R Y 



TIS OF THEE 



Chief executive 
officers and 
subordinate 
executive 
officers. 



support and secure their dominion by assessing 
taxes on the inhabitants, including themselves, 
to pay the cost. 

Executive All other officers are either chief-executive 

Officers. officers or subordinate-executive officers. They 

are all officers of the Citizens' dominion in that 
they exercise the Citizens' ruling right of gov- 
ernment in securing their dominion from de- 
struction by force from within or without it. 

Chief-executive officers include the President 
of the United States, Governors of States, 
Mayors of cities, and some Commissions, com- 
missioners, boards and managers. Subordinate- 
executive officers are executive officers who 
exercise the authority of their respective chief- 
executive officers in sub-limits of that authority 
made by law. 

Military and Naval officers, for instance, are 
subordinate-executive officers who exercise the 
President's authority as the Commander-in-chief 
of the Army and Navy of the United States. 
Militia officers and State police officers are sub- 
ordinate-executive officers who exercise a State 
Governor's authority as the Commander-in-chief 
of the militia and State police. City police 
officers are subordinate-executive officers who 
exercise a Mayor's authority as the chief-execu- 
tive officer of the city police officers. 

Commissions. Commissions, commissioners, boards, and 
managers, where not by law chief-executive offi- 
cers, are subordinate-executive officers, either of 
the President, a State Governor, a Mayor of a 
city, or of a commission or a board which is a 
chief-executive officer, and exercise the authority 

138 



Military, 
Militia, and 
police officers. 



RIGHT TO SERVE AS OFFICERS AND AS COURTS 

of their respective chief-executives within the 
limits directed by law. 

Titles of There are, of course, executive officers with 

officers are other titles than those mentioned here in illus- 
bv any rule. tration. It is not necessary to name them all 
here. They are all in either of the two classes 
mentioned. The titles of office given to most 
executive officers other than those in the military 
and naval service are not made by any rule, 
except that titles of nobility used in foreign 
states are prohibited by compact of the Citizens 
in their Constitutions. Titles of executive officers 
alone do not indicate whether the executive is 
chief or subordinate, and where executive, do 
not indicate the nature of the executive authority 
which the officer has. The titles' of executive 
officers referred to here generally, should not be 
regarded as absolutely making the classification 
of the officers. That can only be done for any 
particular executive officer by referring to the 
laws defining his duties. 

Duties of Some of the duties of executive officers, both 

executive £ c hj e f s anc j subordinates, are ministerial, the 

°^ lc execution of a particular act being directed by 

law without discretion in the officer. In execut- 
ing ministerial acts there is no relation of 
chief-executive officer and subordinate-executive 
officer. The officer charged with the duty, or 
the performance of the act, must look to the law 
directly for his authority. Where the executive 
officer is given discretion by the law, a subordi- 
nate-executive officer must act by the discretion 
of his chief-executive officer and not by his own 
discretion. 

139 



MY COUNTRY 



TIS OF THEE 



Commissions 
usually act 
as a board, 
but in some 
cases each 
commissioner 
has the 
executive 
authority of 
all of them. 



Originally 
the number 
of executive 
officers was 
very small. 



In proportion 
to the 
population 
the number 



A chief-executive Commission or Board con- 
stituted of several officers, each one titled Com- 
missioner, Trustee, or Director, is usually by 
law a single executive officer, its discretion being 
exercised through a vote which finds a majority 
for its act under the law. In other cases any 
one of the officers exercises the discretion of the 
entire body in acting for it. It would seem 
proper, in cases of such Commissions and 
Boards, to consider the members as separate 
officers having the same and equal authority and 
discretion under the law, rather than to consider 
them collectively as an officer. Their title of 
association means nothing in the executing of 
the law, even though it may sound more im- 
pressive in conversation. 

In the beginning of the dominion of the 
American People in their original Thirteen 
States, the Citizens secured the natural rights 
of the inhabitants, and their own dominion, in 
the peace following the war of the Revolution, 
with a very small number of officers in propor- 
tion to the population which they served. The 
addition of offices and officers when the present 
Union of the States was made, in 1789, did not 
appreciably increase the proportion of officers to 
the population. Of the total number of officers 
at that time, more than half were officers of the 
Courts, and nearly all the others were fiscal 
officers. The proportion of executive officers 
was a very small fraction. 

These conditions continued until about 1900, 
except during the periods of the war with 
Great Britain in 1812-1814, and of the Civil 
War in 1861-1865, when the numbers of fiscal, 

140 



KIGHT TO SERVE AS OFFICERS AND AS COURTS 



of officers did 
not increase 
in first 110 
years of 
dominion. 



Number of 
officers 

increased more 
rapidly than 
population 
since 1900. 



Increase of 
officers is 
almost 
altogether 
in executive 
officers. 



Original 
purposes of 
American 
People's 
Courts. 



military, and naval officers were temporarily 
increased. It is probable, too, that in proportion 
to the total population, the total number of 
officers, Federal, State, and municipal, was less 
in 1900 than it was in 1800. The number of 
different offices was hardly increased at all 
during the passing of a century of dominion. 

Since 1900 both the total number of different 
officers and the total number of officers, have 
increased in greater ratios than the population. 
While before 1900 the total number of officers 
was less than one-half of one per cent of the 
total population, it was, in 1916, between one 
and three-quarters and two per cent of the total 
population, and is now — 1920 — between two and 
one-half and three per cent of the total popula- 
tion. 

The increase is almost wholly in executive 
officers, and of these in what are termed civil 
officers. Military, naval and militia officers alto- 
gether were not increased during the period 
1900-1916 at any greater rate than the popula- 
tion increased. Fiscal officers have been in- 
creased in number some, because the increased 
number of executive officers has increased the 
taxes. Court officers have increased in number 
because of the large amount of an entirely new 
kind of litigation with which executive officers 
have literally swamped the calendars of the 
Courts — litigation between executive officers and 
inhabitants, initiated by the officers. 

The original purposes of the institution of the 
Courts of the American People were, first, to 
find and settle by authority the rights of pos- 
session, that is to find and settle the rights of 

141 



MY COUNTRY, 'TIS OF THEE 



New Courts 
with new 
purpose 
besides 
purposes of 
other Courts 
established 
by United 
States 
Constitution. 



property, by the rules of the fundamental Law 
of natural rights; and second, to find the crime, 
and fit the punishment by the laws of the State, 
the dominion, in cases where a person has used 
force and violence against another's natural 
right. In the last class of cases, instead of each 
party pleading for himself, the State pleads for 
the plaintifT, making the prosecution impersonal 
as well as the Court. 

A third purpose of the Courts developed as 
part of the American People's institution, when 
the enactment of laws by the State Legislature 
raised questions between persons and the State 
as to the right of the law, that is to say, the 
Legislature's right to make the law under either 
the limitations imposed by the fundamental Law, 
or under the limitations of law making which 
the Citizens in making the State Constitution 
imposed on the Legislature. The three were 
all the purposes of the institution of Courts in 
the original Thirteen States before their Union. 

With the Union of the State under the Con- 
stitution a fourth purpose of Courts was created, 
an entirely new purpose, and entirely new Courts 
were established to carry it out. These new 
Courts — the Supreme Court of the United States, 
created by the Constitution, and the Courts 
below it, which Congress establishes under the 
Constitution — have the new purpose of finding 
the right of, and settling by authority, questions 
between the States in the Union, and questions 
between States and United States, which may 
be described broadly as questions which arise 
under the covenants of the compact of Union 
between the States as independent dominions, 

142 



RIGHT TO SERVE AS OFFICERS AND AS COURTS 



A new hind 
of American 
Courts — 
officer-Courts. 



Officer-Courts 
are inferior 
Courts from 
which appeals 
are futile^ 



and under the delimination of the grants of 
dominion which the several States have made 
in making the dominion of the State of the 
United States. These Courts of the United 
States, besides this entirely new purpose of 
Courts, serve the same purposes in the separate 
dominion of the United States that the Courts 
of the several States serve in them. 

The resistance which Courts have opposed to 
the attempts of legislatures and officers to en- 
large the powers of officers in violation of the 
fundamental Law, has caused, since 1900, the 
invention by officers of a new kind of Courts, 
which, for want of a better description, may be 
called officer-Courts. The Citizen who serves as 
a Court of this kind is first an executive officer, 
either chief or subordinate, with the title of the 
officer, and makes or creates his enlarged powers 
through being made by the law the' Court of 
the first instance, which finds, or makes, the law 
for his acts as the officer. It is a Mr. Hyde and 
Dr. Jekyll arrangement of a man in office. This 
is why it is that, while a Citizen who serves only 
as an officer, may gain distinction without quali- 
fication, or who serves only as a Court may gain 
honor without qualification, a Citizen who serves 
as an officer-Court cannot gain either distinction 
or honor without qualification. The qualification 
is usually something unprintable, if printable, it 
is lese majesty. 

The officer-Courts are inferior Courts to the 
original Courts. The laws making the officer- 
Courts generally provide for appeals to original 
Courts, in some cases from the judgments, but 
in more cases only from the findings of law. In 

143 



MY COUNTRY, 'TIS OF THEE 



Instance of 
officer-Courts 
nullifying 
law made by 
Congress 
which gave 
Citizens the 
privilege of 
a valuable 
right. 



some cases the provision in the law for appeals 
from the officer-Courts is futile — like offering 
a thirsty man a bottle without water in it. The 
omission of the officer of the officer-Court 
against the right of the Citizen, sustained by the 
finding of the Court of the officer-Court when 
the Citizen protests the omission of the officer 
of the officer-Court, does not make an issue 
which is appealable to the original Courts. 

The officer-Courts in their omissions may, and 
usually do, violate the law of their authority as 
well as the fundamental Law. For instance: 
Congress enacted a law making a privilege for 
Citizens. It provided that Citizens applying 
under the law could take legal title to public 
land in Alaska containing deposits of coal. The 
law provided further that Citizens must initiate 
their applications for the legal title by showing 
right under the laws of possession. The execu- 
tion of the law as the agent of Congress was 
given to an officer-Court. 

Thereupon the officer of the officer-Court 
proceeded to omit (by refusing and denying) 
to give any Citizen a claim of right to apply for 
the legal title to any public land in Alaska con- 
taining deposits of coal. The Court of the 
officer-Court sustained the omission of the officer 
of the officer-Court against the protest of every 
Citizen who undertook to claim a right to the 
privilege, regardless of whatever showing of 
initiation of right under the laws of possession 
he would make. The Court of the officer-Court 
denied, in effect, that the Citizens could have 
any right whatever by force of the laws of 
possession in the public land, and, having found 

144 



RIGHT TO SERVE AS OFFICERS AND AS COURTS 



this against him, then denied his claim of right 
to take the legal title because he did not initiate 
his right under the laws of possession. 

Officer-Court On these findings the Court of the ofiicer- 

operated to Court sustained the omission of the officer of 

off frVmrlght ^ e officer-Court, and so cut off the Citizen's 

of appeal. way to an appeal to the original Courts. The 

Citizen never having had a right, the officer's 

omission deprived him of nothing, so he did not 

have legal ground for an appeal. If the officer 

of the officer-Court had given the Citizen a 

claim of right, by entry, as the law provided, 

to take the legal title, and the Court of the 

officer-Court had then, on review of his act as 

the officer, taken away the right, the Citizen 

could have appealed to the original Courts on 

the ground that he had been deprived of his 

right. 



Officer-Court 
makes dead 
letter of Act 
of Congress 
by enlarging 
his authority. 



By his omission against the right of the 
Citizens under the law of Congress, which 
omission was immune from review by the orig- 
inal Courts, the officer-Court so enlarged his 
power that he took from the Citizens both the 
privilege of the dominion which the law of 
Congress intended they should have, and their 
natural rights in the public land, which the 
fundamental Law gave them. No Citizen suc- 
ceeded in taking legal title to any public land 
in Alaska containing deposits of coal. The 
officer-Court prevented them and nullified the 
law made by Congress — made it a dead letter. 
No Citizen has since taken coal from the deposits 
in the public land in Alaska, though they have a 
natural right to take it. The officer-Court has 

145 



MY COUNTRY, 'TIS OF THEE 



Officer-Courts 

infest the 

Executive 

Departments 

of United 

States 

Government. 



Officer-Courts 
infest the 
governments 
of States 
given to the 
new fashions 
in making 
laws. 



Railroad 
Commission 
of California 
enlarging 
its power 
through 
disregarding 
the law. 



prevented them by prosecuting them as criminals 

for even thinking of taking it. 

Officer-Courts infest the Executive Depart- 
ments of the Federal Government. They are 
there the active officers of the cabal of Citizens 
who have been, and are, engaged in the attempt 
to change the republican form of government of 
the United States to a new feudal form of 
government. The officer-Courts give the cabal 
an effective means by which to take away natural 
rights of the inhabitants, including the Citizens, 
and by making and selling privileges from them, 
to reduce the once free Citizens to the condition 
of subjects to themselves. 

Officer-Courts infest the governments of those 
States in which the Citizens have most freely 
made their laws in the new fashions. The 
officer-Courts in these State governments are 
the agents in office for the Citizens who have 
been, and are, engaged openly in the attempt 
by their votes to change the republican form of 
governments of the States to a socialistic form 
of government. The same as in the Federal 
Government, the Court of the officer-Court sus- 
tains the officer of the officer-Court against the 
right of the Citizen under the law, and has made 
the appeal to the original Courts so remote as 
to be futile to help the Citizen. 

For instance, the Railroad Commission of 
California is an officer-Court. Its socialistic 
purpose is to effect a redistribution of some of 
the capital engaged in commerce by squeezing 
increments from it. In carrying out this purpose 
under the socialistic laws, the Commission makes 
the present value of each particular lump of 

146 



RIGHT TO SERVE AS OFFICERS AND AS COURTS 



California 
Railroad 
Commission 
said it did 
not know law, 
and would not 
observe it 
anyway. 



Parasite 
officers of 
the American 
People. 



capital before squeezing the increment from it. 
The laws say that in making the present value of 
a capital the Railroad Commission must deduct 
from original cost the depreciation of value 
through wear, tear and wastage in service, and 
must add the appreciation of value from in- 
creased earning power gained by economies and 
improvements in the management and use of 
the capital. 

In a recent hearing (?) to make the present 
value of a large capital, the Railroad Commis- 
sion found the original cost, and found and 
deducted the depreciation, as the law directed. 
The Commission also found a large appreciation 
of value from increased earning power gained 
by economies and improvements in the use of 
the capital, but refused to add the appreciation 
of value, saying that it had not known that there 
was such a provision in the law, and that though 
it was in the law, the Commission would not 
observe it. The owner of the capital could 
appeal from this rule made by the officer-Court 
to the original Supreme Court of the State. 
But what would be the use? The success of the 
appeal of the Citizen could not stop the Railroad 
Commission from increasing the increment 
squeezed from his capital. 

A large number of the increase of officers, 
particularly of chief and subordinate executive 
officers, since 1900, are, -in their relation to the 
affairs of the inhabitants, including Citizens not 
officers, official parasites on their commerce. 
The pretense for the officers is regulation of 
commerce. The reality for them is to live para- 
sitically on commerce, in the vernacular to graft 

147 



MY COUNTRY, 'TIS OF THEE 



The hosts of 
parasite 

officers. 



Ultimate 
Consumer 
real host of 
the parasite 
officers. 



by right of the law, a living from those who have 
money. The active carriers of commerce, rail- 
roads and ships, and after them the static 
carriers of commerce, merchants and traders, 
are the principal visible hosts of office-holding 
parasites. The lesser hosts, not always so 
visible, are the professional and labor crafts, 
and impersonally organized producers of com- 
modities moving in commerce. 

Wherever any impersonal group or class of 
inhabitants has been making a profit from com- 
merce large enough to be advertised free; 
wherever, to speak in the vernacular, corpora- 
tions or like business organizations are making 
money, there has been seen a prospective host 
for one or several officer parasites. Then, 
despite resistance from the Citizen owners, the 
officers have, by law, grafted themselves onto the 
money. The public service corporations, rail- 
roads, electric light and power, gas and water, 
everywhere in the several States have so been 
made hosts for a multitude of multiplying para- 
site officers. 

All parasite officers eat money, and, like all 
other parasite species of the genus man, all of 
them waste, or cause waste, of more money than 
they eat, so providing for parasites living on 
parasites. All the money parasite officers eat 
in salaries, fees and expenses, and all the money 
they waste, or cause waste of, in the pretense of 
regulation of commerce, taken by the law, in the 
first instance from the carrier of commerce, in 
the end is taken from the ultimate consumer in 
the price he pays for the commodity moved in 
the commerce. 

148 



RIGHT TO SERVE AS OFFICERS AND AS COURTS 



against 
officers in 
foreign states. 



The wonder is, and the wonder grows as the 
parasite officers breed more of their species, how 
it is that the American People, who are all 
ultimate consumers of commodities carried in 
their commerce, are seemingly stone blind to the 
really plainly visible fact that they, and not the 
carriers of their commerce, are the real hosts 
of their parasite officers. 

Lese majesty Lese majesty is the foreign name of a subject's 
highest crime ex p resse d contempt for privilege ; that is to say, 
of a subject's expression of contempt for the 
man or men who rule him by their own made 
privilege. It is held by the rulers of the foreign 
states to be almost the highest crime — high 
treason to the State, the ruler being the State. 
If a subject says aloud, "Oh! Damn the King!" 
or "Oh! Damn the dam of the King!" he is 
seized, tried, convicted, and sentenced to more 
punishment than if found guilty of murder of 
another subject. 

Rightfully In the American People's dominion there is 

no lese majesty rightfully no lese majesty. The Citizens have all 
the ruling power, and are equal in right of it, 
whether officers or not officers. One Citizen may 
by right say aloud all the contempt which he 
may have for the officer acts of another Citizen 
who is an officer, without the saying being lese 
majesty and high treason, and even without it 
being a personal matter between the two. The 
officer acts are presumedly acts directed by the 
law without personal responsibility. Any Citizen 
may question the law, saying what he will about 
it, so long as he does not breach it. 

149 



in American 
States. 



MY COUNTRY, 'TIS OF THEE 



How lese 
majesty has 
been made 
a crime in 
A merican 
States by 
new fashion 
laws. 



Lese majesty 
is the crime 
of contempt 
of a Lord High 
Executioner 
of a law. 



Lese majesty 
more serious 
offense than 
in Tipitu. 



Wrongly, lese majesty, or its substantial 
equivalent, has been created for the American 
People. The new-fashion laws which provide 
officers — Lord High Executioners — to execute 
them on inhabitants, also provide penalties for 
breaches of the laws which they define. The 
breaches of the laws defined are all similar — 
typically being a neglect or failure to get the 
permission of the Lord High Executioner before 
doing some unavoidable incident act of conduct- 
ing a commerce. These incident acts are not 
per se unlawful, but the doing of them without 
the official permission is made unlawful so as to 
make a pretense of necessity for the existence of 
the Lord High Executioner. The penalties for 
the neglects or failures have a likeness. They 
are fines from $1,000 to $10,000, and imprison- 
ment from six months to five years, or both, and 
each separate day of the failure or neglect is 
made a separate offense, permitting a staggering 
sum of accumulated fines and years of prospec- 
tive imprisonment against one who would ques- 
tion the law. 

Since the doing of the unavoidable incident 
acts of conducting commerce are not per se 
unlawful — if unlawful they could not be licensed 
by a permission — the real crime (?) which 
invites the punishments is of the nature of lese 
majesty, or the substantial equivalent of it, being 
obviously a contempt for the Lord High Execu- 
tioner of the law. 

This lese majesty in the United States is a 
more serious offense than lese majesty in Tipitu. 
Tipitu is a little kingdom of Stageland discovered 
by two adventurers, a poet and a musician. 

150 



RIGHT TO SERVE AS OFFICERS AND AS COURTS 



When 
contempt 
of a Lord 
High 

Executioner 
should not be 
lese majesty. 



Pooh Bah is Lord High Executioner, and hold- 
all the other offices of the state. 

If one, for instance, follows the enactment of 
new-fashion laws by Congress, and notes, one 
by one, all the permissions which, by the laws, 
must issue from a single Department Chief, who 
has been made Lord High Executioner for more 
laws than he can possibly know, one cannot help 
realizing that the one superman cannot, one by 
one, give all the permissions for all the laws. He 
must and does depute a subordinate chief who is, 
of course, then a littler Lord High Executioner. 
Being littler, and not a superman, he cannot give 
all the permissions. So he deputes a department 
clerk who, being nothing at all himself, is then 
a still littler Lord High Executioner, and deputes 
the office boy who sits by the big front door. He 
is the littlest Lord High Executioner of them all, 
but still the real thing, since he issues the per- 
missions to the inhabitants who must have them. 
But why should it be lese majesty, with a 
penalty of $10,000 fine and ten years in jail, for 
an inhabitant to have contempt for this littlest 
Lord High Executioner in the seat of his au- 
thority ? It should not. 



151 



Chapter XIII. 
CITIZENS' MILITARY SERVICE TO STATES 



Duty of 
Citizens to 
give military 
service to 
their States, 



Volunteer 
State military 
force seldom 
has military 
spirit. 



Weakness of 
State troops 
in action 
exposes their 
States as 
protected and 
dependent. 



It is the duty of every Citizen, by virtue of 
his obligation of dominion, to give military 
service to his State against inhabitants who 
obstruct the execution of the laws by a force 
of arms against which the peace officers of the 
Courts are unable to prevail. It is the equal 
duty of all the Citizens to give this military 
service. It is, however, a duty for which the 
Citizens have always volunteered in sufficient 
numbers to constitute an adequate military force 
to overcome any body of inhabitants who under- 
took to obstruct the execution of the laws by 
force of arms. 

But while adequate in numbers, these volun- 
teer forces have seldom had the military spirit 
to overcome the armed inhabitants against them 
when called on to do so. It has usually been 
necessary, because of their defeat in action with 
the obstructing inhabitants, for the State to call 
on the Union for its Federal military forces to 
assist its own troops. 

This is bad for the Citizens. It exposes their 
States as being in fact dependent and protected 
States, where in name and in the unseeing eyes 
of their Citizens they are independent States. 
It exhibits the Citizens as too weak by them- 
selves to secure their States' rights of dominion 

152 



MILITARY SERVICE TO STATES 



No excuses 
for weakness 
of Citizens' 
sense of 
obligation of 
dominion. 



Citizens lack 
military spirit. 



Citizens of 
State of 
Nevada are 
extreme 
example 
of lack of 
military spirit. 



against the destroying forces of unbalanced 
minds within their own numbers. It exhibits 
the Citizens as too weak by themselves to secure 
their right of dominion against invasion and 
destruction by the military forces of foreign 
states. 

There are many excusing explanations made 
for this weakness of sense of obligation of 
dominion. But there should not have to be any 
explanations, and no excuses excuse. The con- 
dition simply should not exist if the dominion of 
the American People is to be perpetual as the 
meaning of this word is limited when applied 
to the dominions which men build. 

The reason this weakness of the sense of 
obligation of dominion exists and spreads among 
the Citizens, is becauce they have not now the 
military spirit of men who themselves, by the 
force of their own wills and arms, make and 
keep dominion. 

The Citizens of the State of Nevada have 
given the American People the extreme example 
of lack of the military spirit. They have lost all 
the military spirit they ever had, if, indeed, they 
ever had any. In 1906 they disbanded their 
militia or National Guard, whatever it was they 
called it. That same year, when the execution 
of the State laws was obstructed by armed forces 
of labor unions and rebels, the Citizens laid 
down helpless, and even unwilling, to secure the 
continuance of their dominion by righting for it. 
They would undoubtedly have surrendered their 
dominion to the banded labor unions and rebels 
if left to themselves to choose whether to fight 

153 



MY COUNTRY, 'TIS OF THEE 



Citizens of 
every State 
weak in 
military spirit. 



or quit. On their call on the Federal Union for 
help, the President sent a Federal military force 
into the State, which set the Citizens up again 
in possession of this shaky dominion. But even 
the caustic lash of the President's criticism of 
the Citizens depending wholly on the military 
forces of the Union to secure their State domin- 
ion against destruction by an insurrection of 
some of the inhabitants has not yet ( 1920) stung 
military spirit into them. 

While Nevada is extreme in being a case of 
total loss or total absence of the military spirit 
in its Citizens, there is not a State in which the 
military spirit of its Citizens is not weak and 
verging on disappearance. Nor is it altogether 
a matter of classes among them, although Citi- 
zens of the fraction of the artisan or working 
class which is organized into labor unions and 
federations seem to have lost all their military 
spirit and sense of their obligation of dominion. 
Among all other classes the military spirit is so 
weak, and the conception of their obligation of 
dominion as being to their several States so 
uncertain and undependable, that they seldom 
back up their own State's military forces in 
military acts by which they overcome the ob- 
structing inhabitants bearing arms, and usually 
undo afterward, through their civil officers, all 
that their military forces did in overcoming 
them. 

Citizens Citizens generally are not conscious of the 

are generally condition in themselves which their weak and 

unconscious r •«• •-,-, • v j* 1 ■ti. u 

, . . , failing: military spirit discloses, lhev are self- 

of their weak ,•.•,-•.-• . ,'.-,-..,. 

and failing assured in their unconsciousness that the failing 

military spirit, of the military spirit measures true growth and 

154 



MILITARY SERVICE TO STATES 



Without their 

dominion 

being held 

unimpaired 

there are no 

American 

Citizens. 



State police 
institution 
hides military 
weakness of 
Citizens from 
themselves. 



higher development in their Citizenship. The 
fact is, that it measures senile decay in Citizen- 
ship, and indicates its approaching death. 

Without dominion there can be no American 
Citizens. When their dominion is destroyed, 
they are destroyed. With American Citizenship 
already so decadent through loss of the military 
spirit that it does not, unaided, hold its dominion 
in a State from self-destruction, with what 
reason may it be expected that the massed 
decadent citizenship of all the States will be 
able to hold their dominion against foreign 
states which attack it? Is it not inevitable, 
when the parts each fail from weakness when 
tried separately, that they will fail from the 
same weakness when tried together? 

The institution of a State police, organized and 
directed as an armed military force, for the pur- 
pose of overcoming armed and organized inhab- 
itants obstructing the execution of the laws, 
conceals the weakness of the military spirit of 
the Citizens from themselves, but does not 
change the fact of its existence. State police are 
hired mercenaries without the Citizens' interest 
in dominion, which, as a superior organized 
police, they secure for the money the Citizens 
pay them. Except in name and paymaster, they 
are the same as the armed bodies of private 
police which the inhabitants maintain to secure 
their persons and property against danger from 
the same organized and armed inhabitants who 
obstruct the execution of the laws. Private 
police forces exist because the weakness of the 
Citizens' military spirit makes the public police 

155 



MY COUNTRY 



TIS OF THEE 



as military is 
an effect, not 
the cause of 
military 
weakness. 



forces ineffective to secure the safety of persons 
and property. Properly there should be no pri- 
vate police forces at all. 

Ineffectiveness It has been both common and popular to 
°J, fSrf troo P s condemn the mode of organizing and officering 
the militia and National Guards which constitute 
the States' military forces, as the cause of their 
ineffectiveness as military forces in overcoming 
the obstruction of the laws by armed bodies of 
inhabitants. The mode of organizing and officer- 
ing militia and National Guards is the effect of 
ineffectiveness, not the cause of it. The ineffec- 
tiveness is in the Citizens, who, so long as they 
are weak in military spirit, are incapable of 
effectively organizing and officering military 
forces in their States. 

Security of Consider the security of the dominion of the 

ominion American Citizens from any starting; point, and 

depends on ,, , . . . .\ 9 \ • « , 

strons military conclusion of the consideration is inevitably 

spirit in that the security depends on the possession of a 

Citizens. strong military spirit by the Citizens, and that 

the strength of the military spirit proves itself 

by the Citizens' State military forces willingly 

and surely, and without the aid of a Federal 

military force, overcoming any obstruction to 

the execution of the laws by bodies of inhabitants 

of the State in arms. 



156 



Chapter XIV. 

CITIZENS' MILITARY SERVICE TO 
UNITED STATES. 



Citizens 
are under 
obligation of 
dominion to 
give military 
service to the 
United States. 



It is the obligation of dominion of all Ameri- 
can Citizens to give military service to the Union 



of their States — the United States — in all cases 
necessary to secure their dominion against 
change or destruction by Citizens or subjects in 
armed revolt against their Government, to secure 
American Citizens and subjects in the possession 
of their rights when in foreign countries, and to 
secure their States, Territories, dependencies, 
subject lands, and foreign states under their 
protection, against invasion by the military forces 
of foreign states. 

American The American People are not a militant People 

People are not ^y inheritance. Their colonial ancestors were 
mil ant y persons who emigrated from Great Britain, 
Holland and France, inspired with the idea of 
avoiding military service themselves and saving 
their children from it. They accomplished these 
purposes. The colonists did not have to wage 
war to make themselves and their property 
secure. The people of Great Britain did that for 
them. The so-called Indian Wars of the col- 
onists did not call for the development of the 
military spirit among them, though they devel- 
oped individuals of the colonists into what are 
now described as good Indian fighters. 

157 



MY COUNTRY 



TIS OF THEE 



Military 
spirit created 
in American 
People by 
success in War 
of Revolution 
and earlier 
war between 
Great Britain 
and France. 



The war between Great Britain and France— 

1754-1759 — was the first war in which real 
military forces of the American colonists en- 
gaged. This war, and the War of the Revolu- 
tion — 1775-1783 — through which the colonists 
secured their independence and emerged no 
longer subjects of Great Britain, but Citizens 
by their own right and arms, created the military 
spirit among the Citizens. But it died out with 
the success of the Revolution — there was no 
other people to war with after the people of 
Great Britain quit. The existence of the Ameri- 
can People as Independent States did not 
threaten the security of the State of any foreign 
people. . It was, instead, regarded by some 
foreign states as giving them a greater security 
from the military power of Great Britain. 



Early 

emigrants 

European 

States 

were not 

militant 

people. 



The subjects of European states who have 
from emigrated from them to the United States have 
been very largely of persons whose principal 
reason for emigrating was to escape military 
service. They joined a people very willing to 
aid them in escaping military service to their 
former states, because they did not understand 
how there could be any need of subjects giving 
military service to their states under compulsion, 
, when, as American Citizens, they did not give 

military service to their own States, or their 
Union, unless they chose to volunteer the service. 

Lack of it is, therefore, not surprising that American 

military spirit Citizens have little natural military spirit, or 
In American nQne &t ^ Their co i on i a l anC estors did not 
People is not « rr,, ,. , £ £ ± *. t. 

have any. lhe subjects of foreign states whom 

American Citizens of the original stock have 

158 



surprising. 



MILITARY SERVICE TO UNION 



adopted as they came, did not bring with them 
any military spirit, but the opposite of it. 

Security of The security of the American Citizens' domin- 

domimon only j on has on jy once (j ur i n g its existence been in 

m jeopar y d an p- er through the lack of military spirit in the 
once through & • & ±x. • a t 4-t, 

lack of military Citizens. I hat one time was the period ot the 

spirit in Civil War — 1861-1865 — between the States. 

Citizens. Being a civil war, the conditions were wrong for 

the development of the true military spirit in the 
American People. The inconclusiveness of the 
fighting in this war during the first two and 
one-half years forced the development of a 
military spirit among the men actually engaged 
in conducting the war. The Citizens not actually 
engaged in the fighting never comprehended the 
military spirit developed among the men doing 
the fighting, and do not even now — 1920 — 
understand that it was the belated development 
of the military spirit among the actually fighting 
men which brought the war to an end. 



The military 
spirit defined, 
and its origin. 



The military spirit is the spirit of dominion 
of the soil implanted or bred in the men of a 
people constituting a state or a nation, which 
unconsciously inspires them to seek to add to 
their dominion by their superior physical power 
of colonization in periods of peace, and by their 
superior physical power of arms in war, both 
used by them, regardless of any considerations 
whatever but those which seem to them most 
certain to secure that territorial extension of 
dominion of the soil. 

This military spirit is born of the necessity 
of the people of a state, of a nation, or of a race, 
to have more soil for themselves as they increase 

159 



MY COUNTRY, 'TIS OF THEE 



Necessity of 
formation of 
the United- 
States in 
place of the 
Confederation 
of the States. 



Union of 
States as 
United States 
gave them 
security for a 
time without 
requiring 
strong 
military force* 



in number and material wants beyond the- 
capacity of the soil they already have to hold 
them and give them all their wants. It is held 
through their fear that the people of another 
state, another nation, or another race, out of the 
same necessity of its people, will seek to colonize 
their lands in peace, or by war to provide for the 
increase of its own kind. 

It was the fear of the original American 
Citizens that unless their Thirteen weak States 
formed a strong military, union, the time would 
inevitably come when their weakness, separately, 
would invite attack by war on their separate 
dominions, which helped the formation of the 
United States under the Constitution. The Con- 
federation of the United States, a defensive 
league of the States formed during the war with 
Great Britain, was seen to be too weak as a 
military union of them to insure that none of 
them would be warred on separately. 

In the union of the States under the Constitu- 
tion, American Citizens obtained more than they 
had expected. The states of foreign peoples, 
from the beginning, accepted the strong military 
power of the Union as a fact without trying it 
out by war. Without real military power, the 
United States not only held their original terri- 
torial dominion in times of peace, but in the ways 
of peace they added to that dominion the vacant 
and unoccupied lands extending westward from 
it to the Pacific Ocean, providing soil for the 
increase of the American People without the 
succession of wars which other States, during 
the same period, were compelled to wage in 

160 



MILITARY SERVICE TO UNION 



order to add to their dominions the soils required 
by the increases of their people. 

California and The war with Mexico — 1846-1848 — came and 
New Mexico we nt in the conquest of an enormous territory 
too ensil J too easily and cheaply won to impress the Ameri- 

won and held can p -j ith th m jn tary spirit. So uncon- 
to give military . ? J * . 

spirit to scious, indeed, were they of it, that after taking 

American California and New Mexico from Mexico by 

People. victory in war, they bought and paid Mexico in 

cash for them, just as they had previously bought 

the territory of Louisiana from France, and as 

they later bought Alaska from Russia. 



The outcome of the War with Spain in 1898 
was due to the absence of the military spirit in 
the American People. Cuba, Porto Rico, the 
Philippines and Guam were taken from Spain 
without being added to lands of the American 
People. 

The outcome of the War with Germany in 
1917-1918 is due to the absence of the military 
spirit in the American People. A vast area of 
land has been taken from the German people, 
but none of it has been added to lands of the 
American People. When Great Britain, after 
the War, took German ships which the American 
People had considered their spoil of the War, 
no more militant protest was made by the 
American People than the question of a Citizen 
addressed to no one in particular — "Doesn't 
America get a souvenir of the War?" 

The high and This is the low of the value of the American 

the low of People's military spirit. The high of the value 

the value of was i n 1844, when the American People de- 

American manded of Great Britain agreement on the 

161 



No military- 
spirit 
developed 
in war with 
Spain. 



War with 
Germany in 
1917-1918 
developed no 
military 
spirit in 
American 
People, 



MY COUNTRY 



TIS OF THEE 



People's northern boundary of United States territory on 

military spirit. t h e p ac ifi c Coast at north latitude "Fifty-four 
Forty or Fight." There was no fight. In 1846 
Great Britain made the northern boundary at 
north latitude Forty-nine, took the south half of 
Vancouver Island south of that latitude, and 
refused to relinquish possession of the San Juan 
Islands, also south of latitude Forty-nine. Sixty 
years later Great Britain relinquished the San 
Juan Islands to the United States, the German 
Emperor having found the right of them in the 
United States. 



A merican 
People 
unconscious 
that their 
present open 
lands are 
inadequate to 
contain them. 



Colonizing in 
Canada, 
Citizens 
become 
subjects of 
Great Britain. 



Unconscious of the real means by which, from 
period to period, their dominion over the soil 
needed for the increase of their people has been 
obtained, the American People are also uncon- 
scious that their people in the period since 1890 
have increased beyond the capacity of their open 
lands to contain and support them. Alaska, 
the Philippines, Guam, Samoa, the Canal Zone, 
and, to a lesser extent, Hawaii and Porto Rico, 
as well as the greater and more useful part of 
the public land in the States, are closed lands to 
the People. They have been closed in uncon- 
sciousness by the American Citizens that they 
have in denying themselves the colonization of 
those soils of their own dominion, compelled the 
colonization of their increase on the territories 
of adjacent foreign states — Mexico south, and 
the Canadian dominion of Great Britain north. 

They are unconscious, too, of the loss of the 
sense of obligation of dominion by themselves, 
which their colonization in Canada should have 
made plain. American Citizens colonizing in 
that dominion give up their right of American 

162 



MILITARY SERVICE TO UNION 



American 
People retreat 
before 
advance of 
Mexican 
colonists into 
American 
dominion. 



Formerly 
American 
Citizens 
would not 
become 
British 
subjects in 
Canada or 
retreat before 
Mexicans. 



Citizenship and dominion, and become subjects 
of Great Britain. 

Mexico has required of the American Citizen 
colonists that they should give up their right of 
American dominion and become Mexican Citi- 
zens, as the sole condition on which their 
colonization would be permitted in its dominion. 
On their refusal to give up their American 
Citizenship, it has summarily effected their 
return to the United States. During the same 
period the increase of the people of Mexico has 
colonized on the dominion of the American 
People, and their attempt at further colonization, 
supported by the military forces of Mexico, is 
only now — 1920 — suspended temporarily by the 
presence on the border of all the military land 
forces of the American People, and the existence 
of a truce between the two military forces facing 
each other across the border. 

If American Citizens had the military spirit, 
those of them who colonized in Canada would 
not have become subjects of Great Britain. 
They would have held to their American Citizen- 
ship, inspired with the thought that their col- 
onization of Canada was the first step toward 
its ultimate annexation to the dominion of the 
American People. That is the way they for- 
merly thought and acted when they colonized 
in Canada. If American Citizens had the 
military spirit, those of them who colonized in 
Mexico would not have returned to their States, 
driven back from colonization by the military 
forces of Mexico, or because of anyone's order 
to get out of Mexico. Formerly they would 
have stayed, and, making their protection an 

163 



MY COUNTRY 



TIS OF THEE 



y eople of 
Mexico have 
the military 
spirit. 



A merican 
People 
retreating on 
the Pacific 
Coast before 
advance of 
Asiatic 
colonization. 



excuse, the military forces of the American 

People would have added all of Mexico contain- 
ing the colonies to American dominion. 

That the people of Mexico have the military 
spirit is plain to be seen, in the fact that they 
not only colonize at will in the dominion of the 
American People, but keep American Citizens 
from colonizing in their own dominion. If they 
continue to hold what they have taken from the 
American People by force of their military 
spirit, it is obvious that in their own dominion 
the American People will retreat their settle- 
ments from the border, and the Mexican People 
will advance their colonies, taking possession of 
the soil from which the American People retreat. 

The proposal, made by American Citizens to 
the Joint Commission of High Officers of the 
two peoples in 1916, sitting in consideration of 
the border difficulties between the two peoples, 
to separate the military forces of the American 
People and of the Mexican People, now facing 
each other across the border line, by a Neutral 
Zone several miles wide, so as to remove the 
danger of their shooting at each other, is a 
movement of American Citizens to further 
retreat their settlements from the border. 

The same evidence of the lack or absence of 
the military spirit in the American People is 
shown in their retreat on the Pacific Coast before 
the advancing colonization of Asiatic peoples 
possessing the military spirit. In neither Hawaii 
nor California are they absorbing into their own 
body the, native-born descendants of these Asiatic 

164 



MILITARY SERVICE TO UNION 



colonists. The native-born Asiatics are Ameri- 
can Citizens, but they are both permitted and 
encouraged to consider that their obligation of 
dominion is to be rendered to the foreign states 
of their fathers and not to the American State 
of their birth. In Hawaii the time is near when 
the native-born Asiatics will be the dominant 
majority over the other American Citizens, with- 
out their sense of obligation of American 
dominion. 



Failure of 
Preparedness 
campaign 
shows absence 
of military 
spirit in 
American 
People. 



The failure of the public campaign, made 
through 1915 and 1916, to give the American 
dominion adequate military preparedness for a 
war with a foreign state, is another evidence of 
the absence of the military spirit from American 
Citizens. Had there been the military spirit in 
the Citizens, Congress would have made the 
construction of new ships for the navy, which 
it then authorized, an immediate construction 
instead of spreading it over a term of several 
years. The Secretary of the Navy would have 
forthwith allotted out the construction to the 
several private shipbuilding yards in the United 
States, and directed that it be given the prefer- 
ence over private shipbuilding. This preference 
would have been given by the private shipyards, 
as a matter of course. Nor with military spirit 
in the Citizens would Congress have constructed 
a national army by grafting the militia and 
National Guards of the several States onto the 
regular army of the United States. 

Regular army The regular army, while truly military in its 
m functions officers and men, is, in its functions, more a 
more a national or Federal police, organized in the form 

national police f an army, than a straight military force of 

165 



MY COUNTRY 



TIS OF THE! 



than a soldiers. Its principal present — 1920 — military 

military force. se rvices are : the maintenance of American rule 
over the subject peoples in the Philippines and 
Porto Rico; the manning of the forts which 
guard the Panama Canal and the Atlantic Coast 
cities, and the protection of the inhabitants of 
the States bordering on Mexico against raids 
and forays from it. The service of the regular 
army in Alaska and in the national parks and 
national forests is police duty. So, too, is its 
service in the States in cases such as labor 
strikes, where inhabitants in arms successfully 
obstruct the execution of the laws, despite the 
State's military forces opposing them. 



A merican 
People object 
to a standing 
army in time 
of peace. 



The American People have always objected to 
the creation of what they call a standing army 
by the United States, and until the close of the 
Spanish War, in 1898, never let the regular 
army, in peace time, exceed 25,000 men of all 
arms. The fear has been that with a standing 
army the Federal Government would be likely 
to destroy the independence of the States. There 
are not wanting signs that this fear of destruc- 
tion of independence is justified. But, as it has 
turned out, the regular army has never been a 
menace to the independence of the States. It 
has, in fact, been the best support of that 
independence. The civil power of the Federal 
Government, which the People had not thought 
to fear, has already destroyed not only the 
independence of the States, but very largely the 
natural rights of the inhabitants, including the 
Citizens. 

Weak point of The weak point in the regular army, con- 
regular army sidered as a national army, is that the rank and 

166 



MILITARY SERVICE TO UNION 



considered as 
a national 
army. 



Militia and 
National 
Guards are 
absolutely 
weak as 
military forces 
for any 
purpose. 



Weak point 
of militia 
and National 
Guards as a 
national army. 



file are hired men. The service is regarded as 
an occupation, not as an obligation of dominion. 
Recruits are solicited to volunteer because the 
pay is high, and the work light, with advantages 
of foreign travel. Military service in the reg- 
ular army, therefore, competes with the occupa- 
tions of civil life in securing men who have the 
option of choosing either. As the occupations 
of civil life in the long run pay the most, it is 
naturally found impossible to recruit the regular 
army beyond a maximum number, determined 
wholly by the pay and advantages as compared 
with what occupations in civil life offer. At the 
present time — 1920 — this maximum number is 
somewhere between 80,000 and 100,000. 

The militia and National Guards of the 
States, which, as has been explained, are too 
weak as military forces to hold up the dominion 
of the Citizens in their States against armed 
bodies of inhabitants who may, and do at times, 
defy it, are also too weak when combined as a 
national army to uphold the dominion of all the 
States against the military forces of foreign 
states which must be regarded as likely, some 
time or other, to question in war the strength 
of that dominion. 

The weak point of the States* volunteer forces 
is that the militia and National Guards are not 
hired men. They do not regard military service 
as an occupation, but merely as a diversion. 
They are composed of independent Citizens with 
established places and material interests in civil 
life. They are, most of them, unable to sacrifice 
those places and interests for real military 
service. As a consequence, the total number in 

167 



MY COUNTRY, 'TIS OF THEE 



Soldier trade 
as exacting in 
requirements 
to gain 
effectiveness 
as any- 
other trade. 



all the States of men willing to serve in the 
rank or file, or even as officers, on a call for 
service in a national army, is very limited, and 
the number of possible annual recruits so much 
more limited by the same material considerations 
that long-service terms are inevitable in such a 
national army. 

The trade of being a soldier is just as exact- 
ing in requiring a period of exclusive appren- 
ticeship training before the trade is learned as 
any other trade. It is physically impossible for 
men to serve apprenticeships at two trades at 
one time, even though one be an apprenticeship 
training for the trade of soldier. This is true 
for rank and file and officers alike. It is phys- 
ically impossible for the latter to learn the soldier 
business of an officer of the national army and 
at the same time give their full service to the 
businesses and professions by which they live. 

"A man who enlists in an army has the right 
to demand that those who are his leaders shall 
know to the fullest extent the duties appertain- 
ing to their office. Lives unnumbered are placed 
in their hands, but they are offered upon the 
altar of their country, and not to satisfy the 
vanity of individuals ; they are in the field to 
fight the enemy, not disease. If they must 
perish, let it be by the kindly singing bullets, and 
not by the ignorance of their commanders. . . . 

"The most promiscuous murderer in the world 
is an ignorant military officer. He slaughters his 
men by bullets, by disease, by neglect ; he starves 
them, he makes cowards of them, and deserters 
and criminals. The dead are hecatombs of his 
ignorance ; the survivors, melancholy spectres of 
his incompetence." — The Valor of Ignorance. 

168 



MILITARY SERVICE TO UNION 



Attempt of 
Congress to 
federalize 
National 
Guards proved 
that a national 
army could 
not be made 
that way. 



American 
People must 
get military 
spirit now 
whether they 
like it or not. 



What Congress accomplished by its act (in 
1916) federalizing the National Guards and 
grafting them onto the regular army, was not 
the making of a national army, but the proof 
that it could not be made that way Both the 
regular army and the National Guards of the 
States being separately incurably weak as a 
national army, the combination of the two was 
bound to be incurably weak the same way. The 
unexpected call for both bodies of troops to 
mobilize for real military service, ordered June 
18, 1916, by the Secretary of War, conclu- 
sively shows this : In six months following 
the order, it was found impossible to recruit the 
regular army to its authorized total of 120,000, 
or even to 100,000, the actual total being about 
85,000. Also, it was found impossible in the 
same time to recruit the National Guards to 
even their nominal peace footing of 120,000 
men of all arms, resignations of officers and men 
tendered, in fact, far exceeding the number of 
recruits. At the present time — 1920 — the Na- 
tional Guards or militia would disintegrate and 
disappear if it was not held together by military 
force. 

Quite regardless of the fact that the American 
People have not the military spirit, and very 
probably do not want to have it at all, they must 
get it, and get it quickly. It is either that or 
they must be willing to accept immediately the 
beginning of the loss of their dominion of the 
soil, which, once begun, will continue until their 
dominion is all gone, and they, as a People, have 
disappeared from the face of the Earth. 

169 



MY COUNTRY 



TIS OF THEE 



A National It is obvious, too, that, assuming the American 

Army cannot p eop i e get the military spirit, it will still be 
from the adult P ract ically impossible to make a national army 
men of the at once from the adult men of the People. They 



People. 



American 
People have 
had so far no 
concrete plan 
for forming 
a National 
Army. A plan 
presented by 
the writer. 



cannot be withdrawn from the productive indus- 
tries in which they are engaged without destroy- 
ing them and disorganizing the whole industrial 
economics of the People. A national army can- 
not be made from retired business men or 
workmen after they have passed the point of 
their maximum physical efficiency. So by elim- 
ination of the unavailable and impossible classes 
of adult men, there are no adult men left from 
which to make an army any different or more 
in number than now constitute the regular army. 
In the end it comes down to the boys as they 
are passing from youth to manhood and before 
they enter into and become part of the industrial 
system of the American People. 

No concrete plan for making the National 
Army from the Citizen boys has yet b°en con- 
sidered by the American People. It is for that 
reason that the writer presents a concrete plan, 
which, if it serves no other purpose, may be 
used as the basis of a final plan. It is wholly an 
American plan adapted to the social and indus- 
trial circumstances of the American People as 
they have been formed and become established 
during the one hundred and forty years they 
have been a People without a National Army. 
It is not adopted from the plan of military 
service of any foreign state. Such resemblances 
as appear are accidental, not intentional. Under 
this plan the military service of all male Citi- 
zens, equally and without discrimination or 

170 



MILITARY SERVICE TO UNION 

favor, will ultimately be given to hold up their 
dominion against the military forces of foreign 
states. In the beginning all male Citizens over 
the age of seventeen years will be exempt. 

Congress has Congress has broad power to make the Na- 

NaTonTl ^^ ti0nal Arm y h X this plan OI " by any . ° ther plan h 
Army by any ma y a dopt which excludes the militia as organ- 

pl an i t izations. This broad power is found in Article 

chooses. I, Section VIII, sub-section 12, of the Consti- 

tution : 

"To raise and support armies, but no appro- 
priation of money to that use shall be for a 
longer term than two years." 



171 



Chapter XV. 
PLAN FOR A CITIZENS' NATIONAL ARMY. 



Resolution of 

American 

Legion, 

Massachusetts 

Convention 

held in 1919. 



Plan of 
military 
system 



The American Legion is a society constituted 
of American soldiers who took part in the War 
with Germany in 1917-1918. The Legion 
adopted, among others, the following resolution 
at a State Convention meeting in Massachusetts 
in 1919- 

"We have had a bitter experience in the cost 
of unpreparedness for national defense, and of 
the lack of proper training on the part of officers 
and men, and we realize the necessity of an 
immediate revision of our military system and 
a thorough house-cleaning in our entire profes- 
sional military establishment. 

"We, therefore, favor a national military 
system based on universal military obligation, 
to include a relatively small regular army and a 
citizen army capable of rapid expansion in meet- 
ing any national emergency, on a plan providing 
competitive and progressive training for all 
officers, both of the regular army and of the 
citizen forces. 

"But it is the sense of this convention that 
such military system be subject to civil authority. 
Any legislation tending toward an enlarged and 
stronger military caste we unqualifiedly con- 
demn." 

The writer's plan of a military system for the 
American People, made in February, 1916, when 
the necessity for preparedness for war was under 

172 



PLAN FOR A CITIZENS' NATIONAL ARMY 



which meets 
requirements 
made by the 
American 
Legion. 



discussion, meets the requirements made by the 
resolution of the American Legion in 1919. It 
is based on a universal military obligation of 
Citizens. The military forces it will prepare will 
be subject to civil authority, except when mobil- 
ized for war. The forces will make a Citizens' 
army capable of rapid expansion. The plan 
provides for competitive and progressive train- 
ing for all officers, both of the regular army and 
of the Citizens' army. 



Plan gives 
stand-by 
preparedness 
for war 
without a 



Under this plan the Citizens' military service 
would be divided into two terms — a term of two 
years of military training first, followed at its 
completion by a term of twelve years of what 
standing army, may be described as "stand-by preparedness" 
for war. In times of peace there would be no 
field service, or field war game practice, during 
the second term, except an annual review and 
inspection testing the upkeep of the stand-by 
preparedness. This annual review and inspec- 
tion could very appropriately come on the Fourth 
of July, in commemoration of American Inde- 
pendence. 

The National Army in times of peace could 
not be a standing army, an army in the field. 
Its officers and rank and file would be engaged 
in their trades, occupations and professions, with 
less interruption of them from military service 
than had by officers and men of the militia. On 
war coming, either with a foreign state or with 
Citizens or subjects in rebellion, the condition 
of stand-by preparedness of the National Army 
would make possible its immediate mobilization 
into an active field army on a war footing. 

173 



MY COUNTRY, 'TIS OF THEE 



Preparatory 

physical 

examination 

of boys for 

fitness for 

military 

service. 



Final physical 
examination 
of boys for 
fitness for 
military 
service. 



Preparatory 
school camp 
for first year 
and finishing 
school camp 
for second 
year of 
soldier 
training. 



At fourteen years of age all Citizen boys 
would be obliged by law to present themselves 
at the nearest army registration office in their 
State for a preliminary physical and other exam- 
ination for fitness for military service. Those 
boys found unfit at this time from causes which 
could be removed would receive the army assist- 
ance to remove the causes before the final 
examination two years later. 

At sixteen years of age the boys who passed, 
or who conditionally passed, the preliminary 
examination, would present themselves again at 
the registration office for a final physical and 
other examination for fitness for military service. 
A rejection as unfit at this examination would 
be final, and no requirement of field military 
service would afterward be made. 

At seventeen years of age the boys who had 
passed the final examination for fitness would 
go on the next following term-beginning-day to 
the Preparatory military school camps of their 
several States. In the Preparatory school camp, 
and in the Finishing school camp in succession, 
they would remain two years, entirely at the 
expense of the Federal Government. They 
would, during this period, be subject to all the 
regular army regulations and discipline, the 
same as men of the regular army, and would 
receive not only the same purely military train- 
ing which men of the regular army receive, but 
as well a thorough training in all the trades and 
arts of civil life which modern military science 
has adapted to its purposes and employs in war. 

174 



PLAN FOR A CITIZENS' NATIONAL ARMY 



In second 
y<ear school 
training men 
would practice 
war, using 
their service 
military 
equipment. 



Land required 
for military 
school camps. 



Location of 
military 
school camps 
in the States. 



The larger part of this war-industrial train- 
ing would be done along with instruction in 
military tactics in the first year in the Prepara- 
tory military school camp. The second year of 
training in the Finishing military school camp 
would be largely war practice in battle forma- 
tions of armies in the field, and the men would 
use the military equipment in this practice which 
they would afterward use in actual war service. 

Each State would have two military school 
camps. It is not necessary that the camps be 
located on good land or near centers of popula- 
tion. The essentials are that the land shall have 
a variety of terrain such as the men would have 
to campaign over in actual war service, and that 
it shall be in large, compact bodies, clear of 
public highways, so that big gun practice shoot- 
ing can be engaged in at long ranges with 
safety. It is better, if anything, that the land 
should be wild and remote from centers of 
population. So far as accessibility is concerned, 
a railroad would have to be built to each camp, 
and the building of railroads in the camps would 
be part of soldier training. 

The preparatory school camps can be located 
in the interior of the States, wherever most con- 
venient. The finishing school camps should be 
located on the State borders or corners, so that 
two or more finishing school camps of different 
States would be contiguous, giving larger fields 
for war practice, and in the cases of the smaller 
States, bringing their several units of army corps 
together so that they may be readily combined 
for war practice. In the cases of the larger and 
more populous States, it would make it possible 

175 



MY COUNTRY 'TIS 



F THEE 



The men 
would be 
assigned to 
military junits 
in first year 
of training. 



West Point 
Cadets and 
National 
Army officers 
would be 
made from 
men in 
school camps 
competitively. 



to jointly assemble ; :wo or more corps in one 
field, and so give "he officers more and better 
training for the handling of the great military 
forces which row make modern armies in the 
field. 

The men would be assigned to the military 
units of which they would be part — companies, 
regiments, brigades, divisions and corps — and 
to the different arms of the service, in the Pre- 
paratory school camps. In making these assign- 
ments, due regard would be given to the homes 
of the men, so that subsequent mobilization for 
war service would not be delayed by making 
them come to their mobilization points from 
remote parts of the State. 

The training in the military school camps 
would be openly competitive, without favor, 
between the men for appointments as non-com- 
missioned and commissioned officers of the Na- 
tional Army. The present system of making 
appointments of cadets to West Point would be 
changed. Each State's annual apportionment of 
West Point cadet appointments would go in the 
order of rank to the leaders competitively at the 
end of the training in the finishing school camps. 
The men in rank next to those getting the cadet 
appointments would be entitled to receive com- 
missions as officers of the line of the National 
Army, grading up from Second Lieutenant to 
Colonel, provided they took a third year of 
training as officers at the finishing school camps. 
The men in rank next below those entitled 
to have commissions as officers would receive 

176 



PLAN FOR A CITIZENS' NATIONAL ARMY 



Acceptance 
of officers' 
commissions 
would be 
elective, and 
they would 
serve with the 
men of the 
next year's 
class. 



Leaving 
military 
school camps 
prepared for 
war, men 
would leave 
their military 
equipment in 
armories 
located at 
mobilization 
points. 



appointments as non-commissioned officers — 
sergeants and corporals — at the end of the 
training in the finishing school camps. 

The acceptance of appointments to West 
Point, which would lead to commissions as 
officers of the regular army, and the acceptance 
of commissions as officers in the National Army, 
would be elective. Appointments and commis- 
sions in the cases of such vacancies as would be 
made by non-acceptance would go in succession 
to the next in rank. Except the first class 
passing through the finishing school camps, 
which would furnish officers for its own line as 
well as for the line of the next class passing, 
the line officers coming from each year's class 
in succession would be commissioned as officers 
in the next following year's class. This is the 
class with which they would receive their third 
year's training. The commissioned officers would 
thus always be a year older than the rank and 
file which they would command. 

At nineteen years of age, training to war 
service completed, the troop units would leave 
the finishing school camps, taking with them 
their complete war footing equipment, prepared, 
as they leave, to take their places in battle line, 
if there be war at the time, but if there be peace, 
entraining and marching to the armories and 
arsenals, which would have been made ready at 
the selected mobilization points to receive and 
care for the equipment. Here, instead of turning 
their swords into plow shares and their war 
horses into plow horses, as folk tradition has it 
American war heroes have always done, they 
will store their equipment of war, including their 

177 



MY COUNTRY, 'TIS OF THEE 



Two years 
in first or 
battle line of 
Active 
Division of 
National 
Army, 



Second two 
years in 
second line 
of Active 
Division. 

Third two 
years in 
third line 
of Active 
Division. 



Service of 
men in 
Reserve 
Division of 
National 
Army. 



uniforms and war horses, where they will be 
kept up ready for service on a call for mobiliza- 
tion, and themselves will put on their civilian 
clothes and leave the arsenal, to take their places 
in the peaceful industrial pursuits of civil life of 
the American People. 

For the first two years after leaving the finish- 
ing 1 school camps the military service would be 
in the first line, the first battle front, of the Active 
Division, or Field Division, of the National 
Army. In other words, these men, fresh from 
the training of the school camps, would be the 
first troops called to mobilize and go into battle, 
in the event of war. 

For the second two-years' term their service 
would be in the second line, or support of the 
first or battle line troops. They would be the 
second called troops to mobilize in the event 
of war. 

For the third two-years' term the service of 
the men would be in the third line, or reserve 
line of the first or battle line troops. They 
would be subject to the third call for troops to 
mobilize in the event of war. 

At the end of the first six-years' service in the 
Active or Field Division of the National Army, 
the troops would be retired into the Reserve 
Division of the Army. Service in this Division 
would be divided into three two-year terms, the 
same as the service would be divided in the First 
or Active Division of the Army. The order of 
calling to mobilization in the event of war 
would be the same. At the end of the six-years' 
service in the Reserve Division, officers and men 

178 



PLAN FOR A CITIZENS' NATIONAL ARMY 



Appointments 
as General 
Officers in 
National 
Army. 



Recapitulation 
of ages and 
years of 
service of 
officers and 
men in 
National 
Army, 



Advancement 
in Rank in 
war and peace. 



would be mustered out of the service, and would 
not be subject to further call for military service. 

The highest military officer rank which would 
be obtained competitively at the finishing school 
camps would be Colonel. At the end of the six 
years' service in the First or Active Division of 
the National Army promotions would be made 
from the rank of Colonel to that of Brigadier 
General. Those receiving the promotion would 
be assigned to command the brigades of the 
class leaving the finishing school camps that 
year. After twelve 3^ears' service in this grade, 
and at the time of mustering out of the men from 
the service completed in the Reserve Division, 
promotions would be made from the grade of 
Brigadier General to Major General. Those pro- 
moted to this grade would be assigned to com- 
mand the Divisions and Corps of the class leav- 
ing the finishing school camps that year. 

The respective ages and periods of service of 
men and officers of the National Army by this 
plan would be as follows: 

Rank and file, from 19 to 31 years, 12 years. 

Commissioned officers up to rank of Colonel, 
from 20 to 32 years, 12 years. 

Brigadier General, from 26 to 38 years, 18 
years. 

Major General, from 38 to 50 years, 30 years. 

Distinguished service in action would bring 
rewards of advancement of rank made by the 
President and Congress just as distinguished 
service in war has in the past always brought 

179 



MY COUNTRY, 'TIS OF THEE 



such advancement. Vacancies among the officers 
as they would occur in war or peace would 
advance the next in rank, so that non-commis- 
sioned officers would be advanced to commis- 
sions, brevet rank, without officers' examination, 
and full rank after passing officers' examination. 

General The General Staff of the National Army, and 

btaff of ^ e Commanding Generals of the several Depart- 

A , j , ments into which the National Army would be 

Army would be . . . J , 1 

constitutional, divided for administrative purposes, would be 
officers from the Regular Army. Officers of the 
Regular Army would also be Commanding 
Officers of the military school camps in charge 
of the training. 



Appointments 
of General 
Officers from 
Civil life. 



Until promotions in the National Army filled 
the grades of Brigadier General and Major 
General, appointments to these grades would 
be made from civil life or by detail of officers 
of the Regular Army. Surgeons would have 
to be appointed from civil life. Ultimately the 
surgeons would be men who had been through 
the school camps and had their training. 

The annual The adoption of the plan here presented will 

recruits to the gj ve foe American People a Citizens' National 
Army. After providing recruits for the Regular 
Army and the Navy required to maintain their 
war footing numbers, and to provide a reserve 
of men for the Navy (no reserve will be required 
for the Regular Army), there would be left 
approximately 700,000 boys 17 years of age, 
and physically fit, to enter the Preparatory school 
camps. Giving the company units over-maximum 
numbers of rank and file to allow for the natural 
losses of the two years' training and twelve 

180 



National Army 
from the 
military 
school camps. 



PLAN FOR A CITIZENS' NATIONAL ARMY 



years 

always 

in the 

would 

twelve 

crease 

see an 



The number 
of effectives 
in the National 
Army by the 
writer's plan. 



How the 
American 
People may 



service, so that the companies would 
have a war footing number of effectives 
event of a mobilization for war, there 
be organized the first year not less than 
corps. Increasing with the normal in- 
of population each fourth year should 
increase of an additional corps. 

At the end of the first three years of operation 
of the plan, the first line of the First or Active 
Division of the National Army would be com 
plete with about 1,400,000 effectives, rank and 
file and officers. At the end of seven years the 
three lines of the First or Active Field Division 
of the National Army would be complete, with 
approximately 4,250,000 effectives, constituting 
76 full corps. At the end of thirteen years the 
new First Division would have in all three lines 
approximately 4,750,000 effectives, constituting 
85 full corps, and the Second or Reserve 
Division of the National Army, filled in all 
three lines for the first time, would have approx- 
imately 4,100,000 effectives in its 76 corps. The 
total number of effectives in both Divisions 
would make a National Army of approximately 
8,850,000 effectives in 161 corps. With this 
total force, with its military equipment, all 
prepared for mobilization on call, the American 
People would be immune- from attack by any 
foreign state, no matter how large its military 
forces might be. If war came then, it would 
be because the American People willed that 
there should be war. 

The adoption of the plan presented, or the 
adoption of any alternative plan which may be 
presented, requires that the American People get 

181 



MY COUNTRY 



TIS OF THEE 



show that the military spirit and hold on to it. If they do 

mill haVG l — get the mmtar y s P irit the y wil1 be willing to do 
" everything else required to make the National 
Army effective. For instance, the states will 
provide by legislation for an age limit of boys 
in the public grammar schools at fourteen years, 
and an age limit of seventeen years for boys in 
the high schools, and will eliminate so-called 
manual or industrial training of boys, limiting 
their public school instruction to the funda- 
mentals of brain education as it should be limited. 
The colleges and universities, public and private, 
will raise their present sixteen-year age limit 
of admission for boys to nineteen years. The 
States and Congress will make a minimum age 
limit of thirty-one years for appointments to 
civil offices of the Government, so that the 
operation of these offices through war times 
would not be impeded by calls to their incum- 
bents to mobilize. 



This plan 
makes a 
prepared and 
standing 
equipment 
for trained 
Citizens to 
use in war. 



Improvement 
of American 



The plan presented does not make a standing 
army in the field in peace periods. It makes a 
prepared and standing equipment for the Na- 
tional Army, prepared in peace for war, ready 
at hand to be taken by trained Citizens, who, 
taking it in hand on a call for mobilization, 
would make a trained army greater in number 
of effectives, and more fit as fighting men, than 
any armies which foreign states could mobilize 
on either of the American continents to oppose 
them. That way, and no other way, lies per- 
petuity for the dominion of the American People. 

Incidentally, the operation of the plan would 
gradually raise, and permanently improve, the 

182 



PLAN FOR A CITIZENS' NATIONAL ARMY 



men through 
military 
training by 
this plan. 



physical, mental, social and moral standards of 
the men of the American People. 

No American boy will want to be found 
physically or otherwise unfit to go to the military 
school camps. He will do the things and live 
the boy life, of his own volition, necessary to 
keep him physically and otherwise fit, not the 
least of which things would be the disuse of 
cigarettes. 



More 
American 
boys will get 
high school 
education 



No American boy will want to go to the 
Preparatory military school camp without brain 
education enough to enable him to compete on 
even terms with his fellows for the officer 
because of the appointments. He will see to it that he has full 
military service time in grammar school and high school to get 
to follow. that education. It will result, in time, in all 

boys getting high school education, where not 
over one in twenty receive it now (1920). It 
will very likely reduce the number of men taking 
college and university courses and increase the 
seriousness of study in them, both of which are 
ends very much to be desired. 



Association 
of men in 
military school 
camp training 
service will 
break up 
present drift 
of American 
People into 
classes and 
masses. 



The military school camps will bring together 
the boys of the backwoods, and mountains, and 
farms, and cities, on absolutely even terms 
during the two critical years of boy life. In the 
military school camps every social condition of 
boy made before entering the camps is equalized. 
There might be class among the boys in the 
schools, but there could be no classes and masses. 
The boys would have everything alike, even to 
the money they might have to spend while in 
the camps. The Federal Government should 
pay or allow them a small amount, say 50 cents 

183 



MY COUNTRY 



TIS OF THEE 



Military- 
school camps 
will help solve 
problems of 
the mixing 
of races in 
A merican 
Citizenship. 



a month, and it should be a military misdemeanor 
for a boy in the schools to have more money 
than his pay in his possession at any time. The 
tendency to social stratification of the American 
People into classes and masses which is destroy- 
ing the get-together sense of American men will 
be broken before it begins, in the military school 
camps, and the twelve years of military service 
together after leaving the school camps will keep 
it broken to the infinite social betterment of the 
men of the American People. 

The problem of mixing the races in American 
Citizenship will become nearer solution through 
the association of the young men of the different 
races in the military school camps and subsequent 
National Army service. There is no reason why 
men of the white, red, brown, and yellow races 
should not be trained together in the same mili- 
tary school camps on even terms in all respects. 
There are several very good reasons why they 
should be trained together on such even terms. 
For one, it would make the sons of European 
and Asiatic alien fathers accept their American 
Citizens' obligation of dominion and forget the 
thought of allegiance to their fathers' peoples. 
For another it would make all the men born in 
American dominion of alien parents learn the 
American People's language earlier and better, 
and understand the American People's institu- 
tion of a natural society earlier and better. For 
another a law could be made which would make 
it a serious military crime for a soldier of the 
National Army to serve in an army of a foreign 
state. 

184 



PLAN FOR A CITIZENS' NATIONAL ARMY 



Citizens of 
black race 
can have 
separate 
military school 
camps and 
be organized 
into separate 
troop units. 



Cutting off 
the supply of 
criminals at 
the source. 



Breaking up 
the vice of 
spying from 
becoming an 



Citizens of the black race could have separate 
military school camps, and be organized into 
separate units, which could be officered by men 
of their own race without the objection which 
exists to their becoming officers of the Regular 
Army. It would be one of the best things which 
could happen to encourage the self-improvement 
of the black race in Citizenship. The chance to 
become officers in the National Army by superior 
merit shown competitively among themselves, 
would be a powerful stimulant to their securing 
the necessary grammar and high school educa- 
tion before going to the military school camps, 
and it would compel them to a self-discipline 
which would make them more efficient in indus- 
try after leaving the school camps. 

Practically taking military control of boys at 
fourteen years of age and holding it till they are 
nineteen years old would largely cut off the 
making of criminals at the source. The subse- 
quent twelve years in the "preparedness" service, 
which would make the men live their lives open, 
would inevitably keep them from criminal living 
until the habit of right living had become fixed. 
The military school camp life of the boys to- 
gether would be bound to break them of the vices 
of lying, spying, and dishonorable and unsports- 
manlike conduct. Liars, spies, and crooked 
sportsmen would be unpopular among the boys, 
who would be sure to see to it that they did not 
win in the competition to be officers. 

From some not understandable kink of mental 
and moral attitude which American men have 
developed since 1900, that most despicable of all 
vices, the vice of spying, has become established 

185 



MY COUNTRY, 'TIS OF THEE 

avocation of among them as a legitimate avocation of life, 
American men. anc j j ias b een ma de a Department of the Federal 
and several State governments, paying salaries 
and much tin horn honor (?) to those who 
engage in it. It will raise American moral 
standards to inoculate the boys of the People 
against acquiring and practicing this vice as an 
avocation. 



Improvement 
made in the 
industrial 
condition of 
the people 
by military 
school camp 
training. 



The industrial conditions of the American 
People, the inhabitants, including the Citizens, 
will be permanently improved and stabilized by 
the military school camp training of the men 
between the ages of seventeen and nineteen 
years. Factory labor and street occupations 
followed by very young boys, which impair them 
physically, can be more effectually stopped 
through the obligatory military school camp 
training than by any amount of direct prohib- 
itive legislation. The boys will be given every 
opportunity to grow into physically sound men 
through this plan. 

Constructive At nineteen years of age the young men will 

governmental De g m their industrial life work physically fitted 

po icy m £ Qr ^ burdens by two years of clean, whole - 

industry which , , . . J , J . . ' 

trained soldiers some outdoor life and training on even terms 
will create. all together. They would, too, have developed 
the spirit which will insure them employment 
as they elect, through their own team force, if 
foreign-born older workmen undertake to pre- 
vent them through trade union control. In fact, 
it is probable that, one of the first constructive 
political policies which will follow, as successive 
classes from the military school camps enter 
industrial life, will be the exclusion of aliens 
from trade unions and from Government work 



186 



PLAN FOR A CITIZENS' NATIONAL ARMY 



Permanent 
employment 
provided by 
National 
Army. 



Boys unfit 
for field 
service would 
make 

munitions and 
military 
equipment. 



Military spirit 
developed in 
men through 
training and 
service would 
keep them 
from becoming 
tramps or 
rebels. 



of every kind. It will be thoroughly understood 
then, as it is not now understood, that men who 
do not give military service to secure American 
dominion in war, have no right to take in peace, 
as against the men who do give military service, 
the rewards of industry for which American 
dominion gives opportunity. 

The National Army by this plan would pro- 
vide direct permanent employment for about 
seven per cent of the rank and file in taking 
charge of the arsenals and maintenance of the 
war equipment in them. Details of the men 
could be so arranged for this employment that 
it would always be available for men of the rank 
and file temporarily out of private employment. 

The boys rejected at the two examinations as 
unfit for military service, when seventeen years 
old, would report at the National Army munitions 
and equipment works provided in every State. 
They would serve in these works for two years, 
receiving instruction and manufacturing muni- 
tions and military equipment for the boys in the 
training schools. There would then be, in the 
event of war, a large reserve of men trained in 
the manufacture of munitions and military 
equipment available for that service of supply 
to the army in the field. 

The military spirit which the men would 
develop with their military training and service 
would keep them from degenerating into tramps 
or becoming rebels of any of the several alien 
types. It would be apt to inspire them to make 
tramps work, and rebels reform, regardless of 
their objections. Men who would be giving 
fourteen years of their lives to military training 

187 



MY COUNTRY, 'TIS OF THEE 



Change in 
spoils system 
of war has 
made the 
development 
of military 
spirit 
doubtful. 



The old and 
the new 
spoils system 
of war. 



A soldier's 
story of the 
old spoils 
system in the 
war of the 
Tai-ping 
Rebellion. 



and preparedness to hold their dominion, would 
be very likely to be militantly intolerant of the 
presence of aliens, and of defectives of their own 
people as well, who undertook to destroy that 
dominion, or to make it harder to hold. 

But, whether the military training of the men 
of the American People, the preparing and 
keeping prepared of the fit part of them for the 
actual fighting in war, by the writer's plan, or 
by any other plan, will develop a unity of the 
military spirit in all the American People which 
will, without their consciousness of it, impel them 
to seek to extend their dominion, depends. Just 
that, it depends. The reason there is a question 
is because of the change which has been made in 
the spoils system of war. 

In the old spoils system of war the soldiers — 
the men who fought through war with fire and 
sword to victory — took the spoils of war. In 
the new spoils system of war, the men who make 
the fire and swords, but who do not fight with 
them, take the spoils of war. 

To illustrate: A man of affairs who, in his 
free youth, had been a soldier of the Foreign 
Hundred in the Heavenly Prince's army through 
the Tai-ping Rebellion in the early sixties of the 
nineteenth century, in reminiscence told the 
writer this story of it: 

He said, "Our Foreign Hundred, mounted, 
was the advance of the Heavenly Prince's army 
of the rebels. When we would come to a city 
we would go around it to the opposite side and 
station ourselves in the roads coming out of the 
city. Then our native Chinese troops would 

188 



PLAN FOR A CITIZENS' NATIONAL ARMY 



The story of 
the new spoils 
system in 
the War with 
Germany. 



march into the city, and the frightened inhab- 
itants, running away, ahead of them, would pour 
out through the roads where we were waiting. 
Every Chinaman would be carrying a sack con- 
taining his valuables. We would stop them and 
make them dump the sacks. We took only what 
gold and silver they had. Nearly every China- 
man had a Swiss watch. We took the cases and 
threw the works away. Every night the day's 
loot was melted down into bullion to make it 
easier to carry with us. It was a great life. We 
were running away from General Gordon with 
his Ever-victorious Army, most of the time, but 
they never caught us. When we quit and dis- 
banded, we divided the spoil equally among the 
Hundred, and had thirty-five thousand dollars 
apiece." 

That was the way of the old spoils system of 
war. The soldiers took the spoils. 

In the War with Germany— 1917-1920— alien 
property custodians took spoils of the war. 
Dollar-a-year officers took spoils of the war. 
Shipowners took spoils of the war. Shipyard 
owners took spoils of the war. Shipyard work- 
men took spoils of the war. Gun factory owners 
took spoils of the war. Gun factory workmen 
took spoils of the war. Powder factory owners 
took spoils of the war. Powder factory workmen 
took spoils of the war. Aeroplane factory 
owners took spoils of the war. Aeroplane factory 
workmen took spoils of the war. Automobile 
factory owners took spoils of the war. Auto- 
mobile factory workmen took spoils of the war. 
Contractors took spoils of the war. Contractors' 
workmen took spoils of the war. And there 
were others who took spoils of the war. The 
alien property custodian took a thousand millions 

189 



MY COUNTRY, 'TIS OF THEE 



Business men 
with business 
as usual took 
the spoils, 
while the 
soldiers took 
the exercise 
of the War. 



Soldiers' 
feeling for 
new spoils 
system of war. 



For future 
wars new 



of dollars of property of Germans, the enemy. 
The other spoils-collectors together took ten 
times as much from the remainder of the Amer- 
ican People, including the soldiers. 

None of these people who took the spoils of 
the war with Germany were soldiers. None of 
them fought in the war. The soldiers of the 
American People who fought in the war took 
no spoils. They took all the exercise of the war, 
while "Business as usual," safe behind the soldier 
walls of fire and steel, took the spoils of the war 
more from their soldiers than from the enemy. 

This is the way of the new spoils system of 
war. The American People's soldiers take none 
of the spoils. American business men take all 
the spoils and, in the ways of American business 
men, make more spoils to be taken than the 
soldiers make. The soldiers only make spoils 
of war of enemy property. The American 
business men make spoils of war of their own 
soldiers' property. How? The spoils are bonds 
of the United States. The business men took the 
bonds. The soldiers returned from war now 
work to pay them. 

That is why no soldier of Our Legion has 
been heard to say of the War with Germany, 
"It was a great life." And it is why a very 
great many of them have been heard to say, 
"It was hell," which is not the life at all. 

Also, it is the why the War with Germany 
did not develop the military spirit in the Amer- 
ican People. 

Also, it is the why no plan of military train- 
ing, or of military preparedness, of the American 

190 



spoils system 
must be 
discarded 
for the old. 



In future wars 
capital and 
labor making 
war munitions 
must serve 
and be paid 
as soldiers. 



PLAN FOR A CITIZENS' NATIONAL ARMY 

People, will be likely to develop the military 
spirit in them unless the new spoils system of 
war is discarded for the old. The defeated 
enemy must provide all the spoils, and the 
soldiers, not the business men, must get them. 

This means that the plan of war, when war 
comes, must be so made that the labor and 
capital of the men who make the tools and 
munitions of war for the soldiers, must make 
them under the same conditions of service and 
pay as the soldiers take who use them. The 
labor of men and the service of capital in 
making war tools and munitions must be obliga- 
tory, and the pay the same per deim as soldiers', 
capital, however, taking no pay, but only renewal 
of so much as wastes. 



191 



Chapter XVI. 

EXTRATERRITORIAL OBLIGATIONS OF 
AMERICAN DOMINION. 

Citizens Besides exclusive or full territorial dominion 

obligated f i anc j w ithin boundaries which are recognized 

to secure ^ . all foreign states, the American People have 

dominion extraterritorial dominion, which is not exclusive, 

the same as outside of the territorial boundaries inside of 

full territorial which their dominion is exclusive. American 

dominion. Citizens are under the same obligation of 

dominion to take and keep this extraterritorial 

dominion secure as they are to keep secure their 

exclusive territorial dominion. That this is so 

is not, however, understood yet by all American 

Citizens. 

Extraterritorial The extraterritorial dominion of the American 
dominion People is secured as to part of it by peace 

defined. treaties, as to part of it by the common law of 

nations, and as to part of it by the military 
force of the American People. The extraterri- 
torial dominion which is secured by peace treaties 
is given by foreign states to enable the American 
People to directly protect their colonies of 
Citizens in these foreign states. The extraterri- 
torial dominion which the American People have 
secured to them by the common law, or comity, 
of nations, or by the international law of states, 
as it is more commonly but less exactly described, 
is on their ships on the high seas, over which 

192 



EXTRATERRITORIAL DOMINION 

no state has exclusive dominion. The extraterri- 
torial dominion which the American People 
secure by their military force, is the dominion 
which they take by their declaration that they 
have it and will hold it, in or over the territories 
of other states, without taking unto themselves 
the possession of the territories of those states. 

American The original dominion of the American People, 

People slow t ^ e territory of the thirteen former American 
andmkTtheir c ° lonies of Great Brit a in > was a compact body 
obligation of °* continental land m which they had taken and 
extraterritorial held the exclusive dominion. There were vast 
dominion. areas of vacant, unoccupied land within its 

boundaries, which provided for all their new 
settlements as they increased in population, over- 
flowing their old settlements, during the early 
years of their dominion. So, from their early 
condition as independent states, and from their 
early expansion wholly in their own territory, 
the American People naturally came to think 
of their exclusive territorial dominion as being 
the only dominion to which they had any obliga- 
tion as American Citizens. 

Having no colonies of their People established 
in the dominions of other states, and not desiring 
to establish any such, and being remote and 
isolated from foreign states whose exclusive 
dominion would interfere with theirs, they were 
slow and reluctant to take on themselves any 
extraterritorial obligations of dominion. Those 
of the People living inland from the coast simply 
could not understand that they had taken on 
themselves obligations of extraterritorial domin- 
ion along with the obligation of territorial 
dominion. 

193 



MY COUNTRY, 'TIS OF THEE 



American 
People 
engage in 
wars to hold 
extraterritorial 
dominion on 
their ships on 
the high seas. 



American 
People lose 
extraterritorial 
dominion of 
their ships on 
the high seas. 



The commerce of the American People, how- 
ever, was carried in their own ships by their 
own Citizens over every ocean into every country 
in the World. These ships, when on the high 
seas outside of American waters, under the then 
common law of nations, constituted an extrater- 
ritorial dominion, which the American People 
early found it necessary and unavoidable to 
assume the obligation of by military power. 
This extraterritorial dominion was repeatedly 
invaded by foreign states through their seizures 
of the ships, and of American Citizens from off 
them, when on the high seas. In the end these 
invasions of their extraterritorial dominion be- 
came the immediate causes of three wars waged 
by the American People — the war with France 
in 1798, the war with Tripoli in 1803, the war 
with Great Britain in 1812-1814 — and of the 
American ship Embargo in 1808, which tem- 
porarily surrendered all American extraterri- 
torial dominion under the common law of nations 
by withdrawing all American ships from the 
high seas. 

The Embargo was a confession of American 
military impotence. It must be assumed that, 
regardless of the declared reasons for the action 
of Congress in making the Embargo, the real 
reasons were the knowledge of Congress that 
the military ppwer of the American People was 
inadequate to secure extraterritorial dominion 
of their ships on the high seas, and its knowledge 
that the American People were slow and unwill- 
ing to accept the obligation of extraterritorial 
dominion of their ships on the high seas. 

194 



EXTRATERRITORIAL DOMINION 



American 
People have 
not regained 
their lost 
extraterritorial 
dominion of 
their ships on 
the high seas. 



Great Britain 
and Japan 
divide domin- 
ion of high 
seas. 



Monroe 
Doctrine 



The war of 1812-1814, which followed the 
failure of the Embargo, was reluctantly and 
spiritlessly waged by the American People to 
secure this extraterritorial dominion, which was 
theirs by right. It did not secure it. The peace 
treaty which ended the war made no settlement 
of the cause which brought it on. Nor has that 
extraterritorial dominion of their ships on the 
high seas, theirs rightfully by the common law 
of nations, been since secured to them. It is as 
effectively denied them by the superior military 
power of foreign states in 1914-1916 and in 
1919-1920, as before, in 1812-1814. 

Great Britain's superior military power in 
1920 effectively denies the American People 
extraterritorial dominion on every sea and ocean 
except the Pacific north of the Equator. Japan's 
superior military power denies it on the North 
Pacific. The division between Great Britain and 
Japan came about this way: At the naval fight 
of the Falklands, which was in the South Pacific 
Ocean west of Cape Horn, the German fleet of 
five ships was caught between the British fleet 
of thirty ships and the Japanese fleet of seven 
ships. At the beginning of the fight the British 
Admiral wig-waged the Japanese Admiral, "I 
command." The Japanese Admiral wig-waged 
back, "Nobody but Japan commands in the 
Pacific," and kept out of the fight until ten of 
the British fleet were sunk or disabled.- 

The Treaty of Paris confirmed Japan's com- 
mand to the North Pacific and Great Britain's 
to the South Pacific. 

The first obligation of extraterritorial domin- 
ion which was voluntarily and intentionally 

195 



MY COUNTRY, 'TIS OF THEE 



the first assumed by the American People, was taken by 

assumption of military power in 1823, when President Monroe 
extraterritorial mac j e t h e declaration of what has since then 
mMtarwoier. been known as the M onroe Doctrine, that, 
"The American continents should no longer 
be subjects for any new European colonial set- 
tlements." 

This extraterritorial dominion has been se- 
cured ever since it was declared without recourse 
to war, although twice it was necessary to 
threaten war to compel its recognition, first, 
when France made a colonial settlement of 
Mexico during the period of the American Civil 
War, and again when European states having 
claims against Venezuela threatened to collect 
them by taking territory from her. 



Effects of 

Monroe 

Doctrine 

have secured 

dominion of 

American 

People. 



American 
People have 



The immediate cause of the voluntary assump- 
tion of this obligation of extraterritorial domin- 
ion by the American People was to secure the 
independence of the Spanish-American repub- 
lican states, which had just before been self- 
created by the colonists of the Spanish- American 
colonies through successful armed revolution 
against Spain, against the further invasion of 
European states to destroy that independence. 
It secured the independence of these new Amer- 
ican States, as it was intended it should. Also, 
it had the further effect of excluding the waging 
of wars between European states from extending 
to their colonial possessions on the American 
continents, and so ultimately contributed to 
secure the dominion of the American People 
against attack from European states. 

The extraterritorial dominion declared by the 
Monroe Doctrine has no right to support it 

196 



EXTRATERRITORIAL DOMINION 



only to look 
to their 
necessity 
when they 
would take 
extraterritorial 
dominion by 
military 
power. 



China gives 

extraterritorial 

dominion to 

American 

People 

by treaty. 



China's 
cession of 
Island and 
City of Amoy 
to United 
States. 



except the right of superior military power. It 
is, however, supported in reason by being a 
military means of securing the dominion of the 
American People in their States. In securing 
their own territorial dominion, the American 
People are not bound to recognize the territorial 
dominion of the people of any other state if 
extraterritorial dominion in it is a means of 
better securing their own territorial dominion. 
They are bound to recognize their own necessity 
for the means as the first and controlling con- 
sideration. 

The first obligation of extraterritorial domin- 
ion assumed through treaty with a foreign state 
to secure the colonization of American Citizens 
in that state was given by China in 1844. By 
the Cushing treaty of that year China granted 
extraterritoriality to the United States, and 
Congress, in 1843, extended the Federal laws 
over American Citizens in China, and created 
what have since been known as Consular Courts 
to administer them. The American People still 
hold this extraterritorial dominion in China. A 
similar treaty by which Japan granted the United 
States extraterritoriality in Japan was made 
later, but ultimately abrogated, Japan regaining 
exclusive dominion. 

A curious feature of the extraterritorial domin- 
ion of the United States in China is that, along 
with other such concessions, China ceded the 
United States extraterritorial dominion of the 
Island of Amoy, on which the City of Amoy is 
situated, and recognizes its cession which the 
United States seem to have neglected accepting. 

197 



MY COUNTRY, 'TIS OF THEE 



War made 
against Spain 
so that 
American 
People 
could take 
extraterritorial 
dominion 
in Cuba. 



Cuba made 
a protected 
state instead 
of being 
made an 
independent 
state. 



The Island of Amoy is larger than the island on 
which the City of Hong Kong is situated. 

The second intentional and voluntary assump- 
tion by the American People of an obligation of 
extraterritorial dominion, based on the right of 
their military power, was made by them in 1898, 
in their declaration of war against Spain, to 
secure the independence of Cuba from Spain, 
which the people of Cuba had been unable to 
secure in revolt unaided. The American People, 
in declaring war, undertook to aid the subjects 
of Spain in revolt against her dominion. This 
assumption of extraterritorial dominion was not 
an application of the Monroe Doctrine, but an 
act of dominion done by the American People, 
without its right, in anticipation of a subsequent 
application of the Monroe Doctrine. The Mon- 
roe Doctrine did no more than secure the 
independence of an already independent state 
from European colonization. The declaration of 
war against Spain was to make an independent 
American republican state, which would there- 
after be secured in its independence through the 
military power holding the Monroe Doctrine. 

The war with Spain secured its immediate 
purpose, the independence of Cuba from Spain, 
but made Cuba a protected state instead of an 
independent state. This means that through 
extraterritorial dominion the American People 
control all of Cuba's state relations with foreign 
states, maintain its government against change 
by civil war, supervise many of its municipal 
affairs, and wage war in all cases in its behalf, 
not only with European states, but with Amer- 
ican continental states as well. This obligation 

198 



EXTRATERRITORIAL DOMINION 



dominion 
taken over 
Panama 
making it a 
protected 
state. 



of extraterritorial dominion of the American 
People assumed in Cuba is very near the obliga- 
tion of full dominion to which they are held in 
their own exclusive territory. 

Extraterritorial The third voluntary assumption by the Amer- 
ican People, through military power, of an 
obligation of extraterritorial dominion, was 
made in 1904 by a recognition of the new 
republic of Panama as a state under their pro- 
tection. The Republic of Panama had previously 
been the State of Panama, one of the states of 
the Spanish- American republic of Colombia. The 
people of Panama, acting under an inspiration, 
apparently, put their State Government out of 
its offices and declared themselves and the 
territory of the state independent of Colombia. 
There was no war of revolution, merely what 
lawyers would describe as a forcible entry and 
unlawful detainer of the government of Colom- 
bia, and the immediate entry in its place, if not 
precisely in its stead, of the Government of the 
United States. 



Panama 
paid the 
American 
People to 
make it their 
protected 
state. 



The people of the new Republic of Panama 
paid for the protection of their independence of 
Colombia by ceding to the United States the 
territory now known as the Canal Zone. The 
American People made Panama a protected 
state instead of an independent state, so that 
they could take extraterritorial dominion in it, 
and by means of that extraterritorial dominion 
secure their own territorial dominion of the 
Canal Zone and of the Panama Canal. 

American While the means were different than taken 

People with ^ w j t j 1 Q t b a the end to Panama was the same as 
extraterritorial + u a *. r* \. j. -• • j. 

the end to Cuba, except in one important respect. 

199 



MY COUNTRY, 'TIS OF THEE 



dominion 
made Cuba 
prosperous. 



A merican 
People with 
extraterritorial 
dominion in 
Panama have 
not made it 
prosperous. 



Security 
of entire 
dominion of 
A merican 
People 
requires that 
Panama be 
prosperous 
and colonized 
by American 
People. 



The American People having made the people 
of Cuba free of Spain, assumed the responsibility 
pf Spain to make them prosperous. They gave 
Cuba a preferential market for its products in 
their states, which not only made the people of 
Cuba prosperous, but made Cuba attractive to 
colonization by the American People. This has 
heen the effect of the twenty per cent preference 
'of the United States import duty on sugar in 
favor of Cuba. 

But, although the American People made the 
people of Panama independent of Colombia, they 
have not yet assumed the responsibility of 
Colombia to make them prosperous. In conse- 
quence, Panama is not prosperous, but poorer 
than when a state of the republic of Colombia. 
Nor will Panama be prosperous until the Ameri- 
can People give it the same preferential market 
for its products in their states as they have 
given to Cuba. The effect of twenty per cent 
preference of the United States import duty on 
sugar in favor of Panama, would not only make 
Panama equally prosperous as Cuba, but it 
would make Panama more attractive to coloniza- 
tion by the American People than Cuba is under 
the same preference. 

While the responsibility of the American 
People to make Panama prosperous is the same 
as their responsibility to make Cuba prosperous, 
the better security of their own territorial domin- 
ion from invasion by foreign states is a military 
reason for making Panama prosperous, and 
thereby attractive to colonization by the Ameri- 
can People w T ho would, as well as should, colonize 
it. It must be foreseen that some people will 
colonize in Panama. The land is cheap, and for 

200 



EXTRATERRITORIAL DOMINION 



Extraterritorial 
dominion 
taken in 
Haiti and 
Santo 
Domingo. 



Experience of 
American 
People shows 



the larger part vacant and unoccupied; the soil 
is highly productive with little labor; the climate, 
for a tropical country, is exceptionally salubrious, 
and the trade opportunity of its situation across 
the Panama Canal, through which all lines of 
ships carried commerce between the countries 
bordering the two oceans will pass, will not be 
overlooked. Panama, when first discovered by 
Europeans, was said to have had about two 
million population. Its present population is less 
than one-half million. It can easily support ten 
million people when its land is brought under 
cultivation. 

In 1914 and 1916 the American People as- 
sumed, by right of their military power, the 
obligations of extraterritorial dominion, first 
over the Republic of Haiti, and then over the 
adjoining Republic of Santo Domingo. These 
obligations of extraterritorial dominion were not 
taken voluntarily, but under compulsion of neces- 
sity. Unfriendly acts of the two republics 
toward the people of European states were about 
to cause new colonial settlements in them by 
European countries, contrary to the intent of the 
Monroe Doctrine. The assumption of extrater- 
ritorial dominion, making the republics protected 
states in place of independent states, secured 
their independence against European states 
whose threatened settlements would have been 
the cause of war if the Monroe Doctrine and 
the extraterritorial dominion which it took on 
were to be maintained and held longer by the 
American People. 

The experience of the American People in 
losing and gaining extraterritorial dominion dis- 
closes plainly that, like full territorial dominion, 

201 



MY COUNTRY, 'TIS OF THEE 



that their 
extraterritorial 
dominion 
depends on 
their having 
superior 
military 
power. 



Fear of each 
other has held 
European 
states from 
war with the 
A merican 
People over 
the Monroe 
Doctrine. 



Extraterritorial 
dominion 
taken not as 
a real test of 
military 
power. 

Real test of 
military power 
of American 
People to 
take and hold 
extraterritorial 
dominion 
being made 
in Mexico. 



it is only taken and secured by having the 
superior military power. Their losing of extra- 
territorial dominion of their ships on the high 
seas is because of compulsion put on them by the 
superior military power of foreign states. Their 
gaining of extraterritorial dominion in other 
American states and in China is because the 
other American states and China have less 
military power than the American People, and 
yielded to its superior force. 

That the extraterritorial dominion taken by 
the Monroe Doctrine is held, seems to have 
been due less to real superior military power 
possessed by the American People, than the 
fears of European states of each other. No one 
of them but has feared that, in the event of war 
with the American People over their Monroe 
Doctrine, some other European state would have 
taken advantage of its military engagement in 
war across the Atlantic Ocean to attack it in 
Europe. 

The extraterritorial dominion which has been 
taken in making Cuba, Panama, Haiti, and Santo 
Domingo, protected states, is more a spectacular 
exhibition of the clothes worn by the military 
power of the American People than a substantial 
demonstration of its force. 

The real test of the military power of the 
American People to take and hold extraterri- 
torial dominion is being made with Mexico now 
(1914-1920). The necessity for taking extrater- 
ritorial dominion in Mexico, and for reducing 
its condition from an independent state to a 
protected state, is the same necessity which was 
the precedent cause of Cuba, Panama, Haiti, and 

202 



Outcome of 
test with 
Mexico must 
be regarded 
as conclusive. 



EXTRATERRITORIAL DOMINION 

Santo Domingo being reduced from independ- 
ent to protected states. But where the American 
People had the superior military power of 
compulsion over the four little states which were 
guiltless of military power, they do not have the 
superior military power over the large state of 
Mexico, which is obviously guilty of having a 
correspondingly large military power 

If, with the same necessity which compelled 
their taking of extraterritorial dominion of the 
four small states, the American People do not 
no W< (1920, et sequiter) take extraterritorial 
dominion of Mexico, the conclusion must be 
that, making a real test of their military power 
to take it, it is disclosed as being less military 
power than that of Mexico. 



203 



